Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Original article
‘Can you recommend any good STI apps?’ A review of content, accuracy and comprehensiveness of current mobile medical applications for STIs and related genital infections
  1. Jo Gibbs1,
  2. Voula Gkatzidou2,
  3. Laura Tickle3,
  4. Sarah R Manning4,
  5. Tilna Tilakkumar4,
  6. Kate Hone5,
  7. Richard E Ashcroft6,
  8. Pam Sonnenberg7,
  9. S Tariq Sadiq8,
  10. Claudia S Estcourt9
  1. 1Research Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, London, UK
  2. 2Department of Design, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK
  3. 3Barts Sexual Health Centre, St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
  4. 4Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
  5. 5College of Engineering, Design and Physical Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK
  6. 6School of Law, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
  7. 7Research Department of Infection & Population Health, University College London, London, UK
  8. 8Institute for Infection and Immunity, St George's, University of London, London, UK
  9. 9Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jo Gibbs, Research Department of Infection & Population Health, University College London, London, WC1E 6JB, UK; Jo.gibbs{at}ucl.ac.uk

Abstract

Objective Seeking sexual health information online is common, and provision of mobile medical applications (apps) for STIs is increasing. Young people, inherently at higher risk of STIs, are avid users of technology, and apps could be appealing sources of information. We undertook a comprehensive review of content and accuracy of apps for people seeking information about STIs.

Methods Search of Google Play and iTunes stores using general and specific search terms for apps regarding STIs and genital infections (except HIV), testing, diagnosis and management, 10 September 2014 to 16 September 2014. We assessed eligible apps against (1) 19 modified Health on The Net (HON) Foundation principles; and (2) comprehensiveness and accuracy of information on STIs/genital infections, and their diagnosis and management, compared with corresponding National Health Service STI information webpage content.

Results 144/6642 apps were eligible. 57 were excluded after downloading. 87 were analysed. Only 29% of apps met ≥6 HON criteria. Content was highly variable: 34/87 (39%) covered one or two infections; 40 (46%) covered multiple STIs; 5 (6%) focused on accessing STI testing. 13 (15%) were fully, 46 (53%) mostly and 28 (32%) partially accurate. 25 (29%) contained ≥1 piece of potentially harmful information. Apps available on both iOS and Android were more accurate than single-platform apps. Only one app provided fully accurate and comprehensive information on chlamydia.

Conclusions Marked variation in content, quality and accuracy of available apps combined with the nearly one-third containing potentially harmful information risks undermining potential benefits of an e-Health approach to sexual health and well-being.

  • SEXUAL HEALTH
  • INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
  • COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Jackie A Cassell

  • Twitter Follow Jo Gibbs at @jogibbs76

  • Contributors This paper was conceived by JG and CSE. JG wrote the first draft, with further contributions from LT, SRM, PS, STS and CSE. JG, VG, KH, PS, STS and CSE initially conceived of the study. JG, SRM and TT conducted the initial searches. JG developed the data extraction form. JG, LT, SRM and TT assessed the apps. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

  • Funding The Electronic Self-Testing Instruments for Sexually Transmitted Infection (eSTI2) Consortium is funded under the UKCRC Translational Infection Research (TIR) Initiative supported by the Medical Research Council (Grant Number G0901608) with contributions to the Grant from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research on behalf of the Department of Health, the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates and the Wellcome Trust.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles