Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a chronic and complex condition, requiring consistent management and education. The widespread use of smartphones has opened possibilities for mobile health apps to support both patients and health care professionals in monitoring and managing PH more effectively. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify and assess the quality of free smartphone apps for PH targeted at either patients or health care professionals. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on freely available apps for patients with PH and health care professionals, accessed from a Spanish IP address, on Android (Google Play) and iOS (App Store) platforms. Searches were performed in October 2022 and 2023. Apps were independently analyzed by two reviewers, focusing on general characteristics. Quality assessment was based on the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) framework, and Mann-Whitney U tests compared mean MARS scores against specific variables. RESULTS: In the overall study, 21 apps were identified. In the 2022 search, 19 apps were listed (9 iOS, 7 Android, 3 available on both platforms). In the subsequent 2023 search, 16 apps were identified (6 Android, 7 iOS, 3 available on both platforms). Of those identified in 2022, 14 remained available in 2023, with only 7 updated since 2022. In addition, 12 apps targeted patients or the general population, while 9 targeted health care professionals; none involved patients in the development or design. Conversely, 13 apps involving health care professionals were identified. There were 10 apps that received pharmaceutical industry funding. The primary goal for 81% (17/21) of the apps was to disseminate general information about PH. The overall mean MARS quality was acceptable in 2022 and 2023, with mean ratings of 3.1 (SD 0.6) and 3.3 (SD 0.5), respectively. The functionality category achieved the highest scores in both years, indicating ease of use and intuitive navigation. In contrast, the subjective quality domain consistently received the lowest ratings in the MARS assessment across both years. None of the apps underwent clinical testing themselves; however, 2 incorporated tools or algorithms derived from trials. The overall quality of iOS apps statistically outperformed that of Android apps in both years (P<.05). Furthermore, the involvement of health care professionals in app development was associated with enhanced quality, a trend observed in both years (P=.003 for both years). CONCLUSIONS: This review of mobile health apps for PH reveals their emergent development stage, with generally acceptable quality but lacking refinement. It highlights the critical role of health care professionals in app development, as they contribute significantly to quality and reliability. Despite this, a notable stagnation in app quality and functionality improvement over 2 years points to a need for continuous innovation and clinical validation for effective clinical integration. This research advocates for future app developers to actively engage with health care professionals, integrate patient insights, and mandate rigorous clinical validation for PH management.