 |
| Image source: STD Triad |
Of nearly 90 mobile phone apps focusing on
sexually transmitted infections (STIs), about a third had inaccurate and
incomplete information in a recent study.
This significant variation in content, quality
and medical advice could lead to sexual health risks for those who search for
answers online before talking to a doctor.
“Due to the stigmatized nature of STIs, apps
could be a great medium for providing accurate information to those most at
risk,” said lead author Jo Gibbs of the University College London Department of
Infection and Population Health in the UK.
“However, there is very little guidance available
for the consumer to assess the accuracy and quality of information provided by
apps, and to identify and distinguish those which are likely to provide
legitimate, trustworthy content,” she told Reuters Health.
In September 2014, the research team looked on
Google Play and iTunes for STI and genital infection apps that featured
information about testing, diagnosis and treatment. They analyzed 87 apps to
see if they met the 19 principles of the Health on the Net Foundation, which
require health apps to include medical qualifications, confidentiality, cited
facts and contact information.
The team also compared diagnosis and treatment
information in the apps to what’s offered on the United Kingdom (UK) National
Health Service’s STI website.
About 29 percent of apps met more than six Health
on the Net criteria, and content varied widely. About 39 percent, or 34 of 87
apps, covered one or two infections such as gonorrhea and genital warts, and 46
percent covered multiple STIs. Five apps focused on STI testing in particular.
Importantly, 13 apps were fully accurate, 46 were
mostly accurate and 28 were partially accurate, the researchers report in the
journal Sexually Transmitted Infections.
Of the 87 apps examined, 25 contained more than
one piece of potentially harmful information, for example, “certain medicinal herbs
may also be beneficial in creating a strong immune response against HSV in
non-infected partners,” or advice that getting treatment for genital warts will
cause “a very bad time” and “will shatter your relationships.”
Apps that were available on both iOS and Android
phones were more accurate than single-platform apps. In total, only one app
provided completely accurate information about chlamydia, the most common STI
in the UK. No apps contained documentation or citations.
Future studies could show how much has changed
with STI app availability and accuracy since 2014, Gibbs noted.
“As with any review of apps, there is a lag
between conducting the review and the results being published,” she said. “The
landscape may have changed during this time.”
The UK National Health Service estimates 102
billion downloads of health-related apps worldwide. The organization plans to
develop a library of endorsed apps for a variety of medical conditions in the
future.
“This is definitely an important topic, and it’s
great to see that an updated review has been done,” said Kate Muessig of the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who wasn’t involved with the
study. Gibbs and colleagues based the STI study methods on previous research
that Muessig has conducted about HIV apps.
“Most available HIV/STD apps have failed to
attract user attention and positive reviews,” Muessig and colleagues wrote in
2013. “Public health practitioners should work with app developers to
incorporate elements” that reduce risk, improve app inclusiveness and increase
interactivity.
In the meantime, smartphone users looking for STI
information should probably stick to official online sources, Gibbs added.
“Although some of the apps we reviewed were of
high quality, these were hard to identify,” she said. “We would recommend
consumers looking for information on STIs to access endorsed health websites or
their local sexual health services.”
Originally
published on Reuters
No comments :
Post a Comment