Satish Misra*, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States Timothy Aungst*, iMedicalApps, Boston, United States Thomas Lewis*, iMedicalApps, London, United Kingdom Gunther Eysenbach*, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada David Albert, AliveCor, San Franscisco, United States Track: Practice Presentation Topic: Mobile & Tablet Health Applications Presentation Type: Panel Submission Type: Panel Presentation Building: Mermaid Room: Main Auditorium Date: 2013-09-24 02:00 PM – 02:45 PM Last modified: 2013-09-25

If you are the presenter of this abstract (or if you cite this abstract in a talk or on a poster), please show the QR code in your slide or poster (QR code contains this URL).

As mobile medical applications and connected devices proliferate, the need to determine safety and efficacy of these tools has grown in parallel. However, the appropriate approach to evaluating these tools is not clear, particularly given the pace of development. The traditional gold standard of randomized controlled trials has been widely critiqued in mobile health [1]. Others have found that even conducting systematic evaluation of point-of-care tools was limited by the frequency of updates and changes [2]. However, the availability of medical applications that fall far short of the claims they make suggest that thoughtful evaluation remains important and the success that many researchers have found suggest it is feasible [3,4].

This panel will be comprised of clinicians, researchers, entrepreneurs, and patient-advocates. In addition to the list panelists, we anticipate invitation of one additional researcher to be selected from the finalists for the iMedicalApps-Medicine 2.0 Research Award and a patient advocate.

The panel will introduce and critically appraise the various study designs that have already been used to evaluate mobile health applications. We will discuss common pitfalls and awareness points specific to the mobile health application ecosystem. This discussion on what types of research are appropriate and should be expected with mHealth technology, in particular apps and connected devices, will enable researchers to understand the current limitations in study design. The following issues will be discussed and debated:

- What are appropriate outcomes/objectives for mobile health research
- How should we deal with the rapid rate of development
- The issues surrounding multiple hardware and software platforms
- The role of peer review in individual mobile health applications and solutions

Following position statements by the panel members, we anticipate vigorous discussion by members of the research community regarding the current issues in mobile application and connected device research. These are likely to focus on the areas described above which are currently open to individual interpretation. Finally the panel will discuss the overall importance of research in the mobile health application ecosystem and thoughts on future directions to be explored.

1. Payne, Perry. “Do mHealth apps require randomized controlled trials.” http://www.imedicalapps.com/2012/12/mhealth-apps-require-randomized-controlled-trials-mhealth-summit/. Accessed 21/03/2013.

2. Shurtz, S., & Foster, M. J. (2011). Developing and using a rubric for evaluating evidence-based medicine point-of-care tools. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 99(3), 247–54. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.99.3.012

3.4. Abroms LC, Padmanabhan N, Thaweethai L, Phillips T. iPhone apps for smoking cessation: a content analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2011 Mar;40(3):279-85

4. Effects of a mHealth intervention for alcohol relapse prevention. (n.d.). Retrieved February 22, 2013, from http://www.imedicalapps.com/2012/12/mhealth-intervention-alcohol-relapse-prevention/