Quality Assessment of Smartphone Medication Management Apps in France: Systematic Search.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to medication is estimated to be around 50% for chronically ill patients in high-income countries. Improving the effectiveness of adherence interventions could have a far greater impact on population health than any improvement in specific medical treatments. Mobile health (mHealth) is one of the most effective solutions for helping patients improve their medication intake, notably through the use of mobile apps with reminder systems. With more than 327,000 apps available in the mHealth field, it is difficult for health care professionals and patients alike to choose which apps to recommend and use. OBJECTIVE: We aim to carry out a systematic search of medication management smartphone apps available in France that send reminders to patients and assess their quality using a validated scale. METHODS: Mobile apps were identified in October and November 2022 after a systematic keyword search on the 2 main app download platforms: App Store (Apple Inc) and Google Play Store. Inclusion criteria were free availability, date of last update, and availability in French. Next, 2 health care professionals independently evaluated the included apps using the French version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS-F), an objective scoring system validated for assessing the overall quality of apps in the mHealth field. An intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated to determine interrater reliability. RESULTS: In total, 960 apps were identified and 49 were selected (25 from the App Store and 24 from the Google Play Store). Interrater reliability was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.92; 95% CI 0.87-0.95; P<.001). The average MARS-F score was 3.56 (SD 0.49) for apps on the App Store and 3.51 (SD 0.46) for those on the Google Play Store, with 10 apps scoring above 4 out of 5. Further, 2 apps were tested in at least one randomized controlled trial and showed positive results. The 2 apps with the highest ratings were Mediteo rappel de médicaments (Mediteo GmbH) and TOM rappel medicaments, pilule (Innovation6 GmbH), available on both platforms. Each app's MARS-F score was weakly correlated with user ratings on the App Store and moderately correlated on the Google Play Store. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study that used a validated scoring system to evaluate medication management apps that send medication reminders. The quality of the apps was heterogeneous, with only 2 having been studied in a randomized controlled trial with positive results. The evaluation of apps in real-life conditions by patients is necessary to determine their acceptability and effectiveness. Certification of apps is also essential to help health care professionals and patients identify validated apps.

Recommendations for risk management and better living with epilepsy. Phenomenological study of the experience of patients, relatives, and bereaved families.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the lived experience of people with epilepsy (PWE) and their relatives, the risks associated with epilepsy, the information received from healthcare professionals, and the reaction to this information. METHODS: Qualitative phenomenological study conducted between 2016 and 2018. Individual semi-directive in-depth interviews were performed based on a triangulation of sources in three study groups: PWE, relatives of PWE, and bereaved families. Interviews were analyzed continuously, using a semiopragmatic method until data saturation. RESULTS: Interviews with PWE (N = 16), relatives of PWE (N = 8), and bereaved families (N = 10) led to several observations: (i) The stigmatizing representations of epilepsy and its constraints lead to a feeling of abnormality which determines the behavior of patients and their relatives; (ii) The global uncertainty surrounding epilepsy is an obstacle to the delivery of clear and personalized information by professionals, and, consequently, to empowerment; (iii) The communication skills of the physician have an impact on the lived experiences of patients and relatives; (iv) Better knowledge on direct mortal epilepsy-related risk could influence the perception of danger to oneself, and help find a balance between overprotection and trivialization. The experience of the patients and relatives led them to formulate concrete recommendations: (i) for the general public: to run information campaigns in order to limit stigmatization; (ii) for caregivers: to provide personalized and detailed information without minimizing the risks, in order to enable patients to "live by setting these risks"; (iii) for patients: to have a trusted person who is informed and trained in seizure management, to join patient associations. CONCLUSION: Our study points out that stigma, uncertainty, and lack of clarity of information are all barriers to patient empowerment. In order to provide prompt and personalized information on how to live with epilepsy while managing the risks, physicians need to develop person-centered communication skills. Future research is also required for the development of tools to facilitate this communication.

[Not Available]. / Comprendre la décision vaccinale des parents pour mieux accompagner leurs choix: étude qualitative phénoménologique auprès des parents français.

OBJECTIVE: To understand parents' representations based on their own lived experiences and their influence on the decision to vaccinate their children. METHODS: This was a qualitative, in-depth, phenomenological study using semi-structured interviews with 14 volunteer parents who have children age-eligible for vaccination. The participants were recruited through family doctors in the Montpellier region (France). The methodology is modeled on grounded theory. The data, collected by audio recording, were analyzed using a semio-pragmatic method that brought forth conceptual categories giving meaning to the phenomenon being studied. RESULTS: Parents are unaware of the diseases for which there are vaccines and express a need for information. A perception of the inequality of the individual in face of the disease and the vaccine greatly influences the parents' vaccination decision. It induces in them a reasoned "sifting" of vaccines and leads them to strike a risk/benefit balance. They trust more in their doctor and their personal experience than in publicized information. CONCLUSION: Parents' lack of awareness of diseases, even those for which immunization exists, would suggest a need to better inform parents on this matter. Their perception of the inequality of the individual (their child) in face of the disease and the vaccine is the main determinant in their decision to vaccinate. Parents approach immunization in a thoughtful educated way, influenced by such factors as lifestyle, personal experiences and confidence in their doctor. These results make them very "critical" with regard to basic vaccination recommendations.