Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Apps in Clinical Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Clinical Research Informatics

Part of the book series: Health Informatics ((HI))

  • 590 Accesses

Abstract

Apps—software applications that can be installed and run on a computer, tablet, smartphone, or other electronic devices—are changing the landscape of clinical research by opening new avenues for administrating and evaluating interventions. In addition to supporting research operations, the use of apps can facilitate increased patient engagement, efficiencies in research participation and data collection, accelerating the generation of new evidence and its application into clinical practice into practice and into lives of patients via management of their health and disease and decision-making. The use of apps is also changing the paradigm of health data ownership, raising new opportunities for participant empowerment and involvement in clinical research. This chapter outlines the major events leading to today’s app infrastructure, current uses of apps in clinical research, design considerations, and future directions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Tangari G, Ikram M, Ijaz K, Kaafar MA, Berkovsky S. Mobile health and privacy: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2021;373:n1248. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1248.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. McManus RJ, Little P, Stuart B, et al. Home and online management and evaluation of blood pressure (HOME BP) using a digital intervention in poorly controlled hypertension: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2021;372:m4858 (in Eng). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Eberle C, Löhnert M, Stichling S. Effectiveness of disease-specific mHealth apps in patients with diabetes mellitus: scoping review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021;9(2):e23477 (in Eng). https://doi.org/10.2196/23477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Duncan MJ, Fenton S, Brown WJ, et al. Efficacy of a multi-component m-health weight-loss intervention in overweight and obese adults: a randomised controlled trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(17) (in Eng). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176200.

  5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 21st Century Cures Act. 31 Jan 2020 https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/selected-amendments-fdc-act/21st-century-cures-act.

  6. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. 21st Century Cures Act: Interoperability, Information Blocking, and the ONC Health IT Certification Program. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/01/2020-07419/21st-century-cures-act-interoperability-information-blocking-and-the-onc-health-it-certification.

  7. Tu SW, Peleg M, Carini S, et al. A practical method for transforming free-text eligibility criteria into computable criteria. J Biomed Inform. 2011;44(2):239–50 (in Eng). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2010.09.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gonzalez M, Carlino MS, Zielinski RR, et al. An app to increase cross-referral and recruitment to melanoma clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(15_Suppl):9590. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.9590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fleischmann R, Decker AM, Kraft A, Mai K, Schmidt S. Mobile electronic versus paper case report forms in clinical trials: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):153 (in Eng). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0429-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zong N, Wen A, Stone DJ, et al. Developing an FHIR-based computational pipeline for automatic population of case report forms for colorectal cancer clinical trials using electronic health records. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2020;4:201–209 (in Eng). https://doi.org/10.1200/cci.19.00116.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Office of the National Coordinator. What are patient-generated health data? https://www.healthit.gov/topic/otherhot-topics/what-are-patient-generated-health-data.

  12. Demiris G, Iribarren SJ, Sward K, Lee S, Yang R. Patient generated health data use in clinical practice: a systematic review. Nurs Outlook. 2019;67(4):311–330 (in Eng). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2019.04.005.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. van Dam J, Omondi Onyango K, Midamba B, et al. Open-source mobile digital platform for clinical trial data collection in low-resource settings. BMJ Innov. 2017;3(1):26. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2016-000164.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Gurol-Urganci I, de Jongh T, Vodopivec-Jamsek V, Atun R, Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2013(12):CD007458 (in Eng). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007458.pub3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lam TYT, Wu PI, Tang RSY, Luk AKC, Ng S, Sung JJY. Mobile messenger-initiated reminders improve longitudinal adherence in a community-based, opportunistic colorectal cancer screening program: a single-blind, crossover randomized controlled study. Cancer. 2021;127(6):914–921 (in Eng). https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Graff MJ, Vernooij-Dassen MJ, Thijssen M, Dekker J, Hoefnagels WH, Rikkert MG. Community based occupational therapy for patients with dementia and their care givers: randomised controlled trial. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 2006;333(7580):1196 (in Eng). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39001.688843.BE.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Alam S, Hannon B, Zimmermann C. Palliative care for family caregivers. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(9):926–936 (in Eng). https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.19.00018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Arnetz BB, Goetz CM, Arnetz JE, et al. Enhancing healthcare efficiency to achieve the quadruple aim: an exploratory study. BMC Res Notes. 2020;13(1):362 (in Eng). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-020-05199-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. de Jong A, Donelle L, Kerr M. Nurses’ use of personal smartphone technology in the workplace: scoping review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(11):e18774 (in Eng). https://doi.org/10.2196/18774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Glasgow RE, Knoepke CE, Magid D, et al. The NUDGE trial pragmatic trial to enhance cardiovascular medication adherence: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2021;22(1):528 (in Eng). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05453-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Suso-Ribera C, Mesas Á, Medel J, et al. Improving pain treatment with a smartphone app: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2018;19(1):145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2539-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Hamel LM, Dougherty DW, Kim S, et al. DISCO app: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a patient intervention to reduce the financial burden of cancer in a diverse patient population. Trials. 2021;22(1):636 (in Eng). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05593-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cox CE, Riley IL, Ashana DC, et al. Improving racial disparities in unmet palliative care needs among intensive care unit family members with a needs-targeted app intervention: the ICUconnect randomized clinical trial. Contemp Clin Trials. 2021;103:106319 (in Eng). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2021.106319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Marcuzzi A, Bach K, Nordstoga AL, et al. Individually tailored self-management app-based intervention (selfBACK) versus a self-management web-based intervention (e-Help) or usual care in people with low back and neck pain referred to secondary care: protocol for a multiarm randomised clinical trial. BMJ Open. 2021;11(9):e047921 (in Eng). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sawyer A, Kaim A, Le HN, et al. The effectiveness of an app-based nurse-moderated program for new mothers with depression and parenting problems (eMums plus): pragmatic randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(6):e13689 (in Eng). https://doi.org/10.2196/13689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Health Level 7. FHIR overview. https://www.hl7.org/fhir/overview.html.

  27. Health Level 7. Clinical decision support. https://build.fhir.org/clinicalreasoning-cds-on-fhir.html.

  28. LOINC. Answer File. https://loinc.org/answer-file/.

  29. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. United States Core Data for Interoperability (USCDI). https://www.healthit.gov/isa/united-states-core-data-interoperability-uscdi.

  30. Apple. HealthKit. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/healthkit.

  31. Google. Google Fit. https://developers.google.com/fit.

  32. Open mHealth. Open mHealth. https://www.openmhealth.org/.

  33. Epic. Epic App Market. https://appmarket.epic.com/.

  34. Cerner. App gallery. https://code.cerner.com/apps.

  35. Boston Children’s Hospital Computational Health Informatics Program. SMART App Gallery. https://apps.smarthealthit.org/apps/featured.

  36. The Office of the National Coordinator. Key privacy and security considerations for healthcare application programming interfaces (APIS). https://www.hhs.gov/guidance/document/key-privacy-and-security-considerations-healthcare-application-programming-interfaces-apis.

  37. Jercich K. Playing with FHIR? Don’t get burned, white-hat hacker cautions. https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/playing-fhir-dont-get-burned-white-hat-hacker-cautions.

  38. Health Level 7. Statement to the global community from hl7 international on the paper ‘Playing with FHIR: Hacking and Securing FHIR APIs”. https://blog.hl7.org/statement-to-the-global-community-from-hl7-international-on-the-paper-playing-with-fhir-hacking-and-securing-fhir-apis.

  39. The Pew Charitable Trusts. Most Americans want to share and access more digital health data. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2021/07/most-americans-want-to-share-and-access-more-digital-health-data.

  40. Kim J, Kim H, Bell E, et al. Patient perspectives about decisions to share medical data and biospecimens for research. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(8):e199550. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.9550.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Hammack-Aviran CM, Brelsford KM, McKenna KC, Graham RD, Lampron ZM, Beskow LM. Research use of electronic health records: patients’ views on alternative approaches to permission. AJOB Empirical Bioethics. 2020;11(3):172–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2020.1755383.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Naeem I, Quan H, Singh S, et al. Factors associated with willingness to share health information: rapid review. JMIR Hum Factors. 2022;9(1):e20702 (in Eng). https://doi.org/10.2196/20702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Roehrs A, da Costa CA, Righi RD, de Oliveira KS. Personal health records: a systematic literature review. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(1):e13 (in Eng). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Douthit BJ, Del Fiol G, Staes CJ, Docherty SL, Richesson RL. A conceptual framework of data readiness: the contextual intersection of quality, availability, interoperability, and provenance. Appl Clin Inform. 2021;12(3):675–685 (in Eng). https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1732423.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Margheri A, Masi M, Miladi A, Sassone V, Rosenzweig J. Decentralised provenance for healthcare data. Int J Med Inform. 2020;141:104197 (in Eng). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, TN, USA

    Brian Douthit

  2. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

    Brian Douthit

  3. Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Rachel L. Richesson

Authors
  1. Brian Douthit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rachel L. Richesson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian Douthit .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan School of Medicin, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Rachel L. Richesson

  2. School of Information, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

    James E. Andrews

  3. Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    Kate Fultz Hollis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Douthit, B., Richesson, R.L. (2023). Apps in Clinical Research. In: Richesson, R.L., Andrews, J.E., Fultz Hollis, K. (eds) Clinical Research Informatics. Health Informatics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27173-1_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27173-1_24

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-27172-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-27173-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation