Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/13804
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGibbs, J-
dc.contributor.authorGkatzidou, V-
dc.contributor.authorTickle, L-
dc.contributor.authorManning, SR-
dc.contributor.authorTilakkumar, T-
dc.contributor.authorHone, K-
dc.contributor.authorAshcroft, RE-
dc.contributor.authorSonnenberg, P-
dc.contributor.authorSadiq, ST-
dc.contributor.authorEstcourt, CS-
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-09T12:02:22Z-
dc.date.available2017-01-09T12:02:22Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationSexually Transmitted Infections, pp. 1-8, (2016)en_US
dc.identifier.issn1368-4973-
dc.identifier.urihttp://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/13804-
dc.description.abstractObjective 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.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThe 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.en_US
dc.format.extentsextrans-2016-052690 - sextrans-2016-052690-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupen_US
dc.title‘Can you recommend any good STI apps?’ A review of content, accuracy and comprehensiveness of current mobile medical applications for STIs and related genital infectionsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2016-052690-
dc.relation.isPartOfSexually Transmitted Infections-
pubs.publication-statusPublished online-
Appears in Collections:Dept of Computer Science Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
FullText.pdf1.63 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.