@Article{信息:doi 10.2196 / / jmir。4581，作者=“Nicholas, Jennifer和Larsen, Mark Erik和Proudfoot, Judith和Christensen, Helen”，标题=“双相情感障碍的移动应用:特征和内容质量的系统回顾”，期刊=“J Med Internet Res”，年=“2015”，月=“8”，日=“17”，卷=“17”，数=“8”，页=“e198”，关键词=“移动应用;双相情感障碍;审查;背景:随着智能手机拥有量的持续增加，研究人员和临床医生正在研究使用这项技术来加强双相情感障碍(BD)等慢性疾病的管理。智能手机可以用于提供干预和心理教育，补充治疗，并提高双相障碍的治疗范围，因为应用程序具有成本效益，可访问，匿名和方便。虽然基于证据的BD应用程序开发还处于起步阶段，但公开可用的应用程序已经出现了爆炸式增长。然而，移动医疗协助BD自我管理的机会只有在应用程序质量合适的情况下才可行。目的:我们的目标是确定目前在Google Play和iOS商店中可用于BD的应用类型，并评估其功能和内容质量。方法:采用系统评价框架对应用程序进行搜索、筛选和评估。 We searched the Australian Google Play and iOS stores for English-language apps developed for people with BD. The comprehensiveness and quality of information was assessed against core psychoeducation principles and current BD treatment guidelines. Management tools were evaluated with reference to the best-practice resources for the specific area. General app features, and privacy and security were also assessed. Results: Of the 571 apps identified, 82 were included in the review. Of these, 32 apps provided information and the remaining 50 were management tools including screening and assessment (n=10), symptom monitoring (n=35), community support (n=4), and treatment (n=1). Not even a quarter of apps (18/82, 22{\%}) addressed privacy and security by providing a privacy policy. Overall, apps providing information covered a third (4/11, 36{\%}) of the core psychoeducation principles and even fewer (2/13, 15{\%}) best-practice guidelines. Only a third (10/32, 31{\%}) cited their information source. Neither comprehensiveness of psychoeducation information (r=-.11, P=.80) nor adherence to best-practice guidelines (r=-.02, P=.96) were significantly correlated with average user ratings. Symptom monitoring apps generally failed to monitor critical information such as medication (20/35, 57{\%}) and sleep (18/35, 51{\%}), and the majority of self-assessment apps did not use validated screening measures (6/10, 60{\%}). Conclusions: In general, the content of currently available apps for BD is not in line with practice guidelines or established self-management principles. Apps also fail to provide important information to help users assess their quality, with most lacking source citation and a privacy policy. Therefore, both consumers and clinicians should exercise caution with app selection. While mHealth offers great opportunities for the development of quality evidence-based mobile interventions, new frameworks for mobile mental health research are needed to ensure the timely availability of evidence-based apps to the public. ", issn="1438-8871", doi="10.2196/jmir.4581", url="//www.mybigtv.com/2015/8/e198/", url="https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4581", url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26283290" }