# Exploring the Fit Between the Outputs of Freely Available Medication Adherence Apps and Users’ Needs: Mixed Methods Study

## TL;DR

This study examines how well medication adherence apps meet user needs, finding that while some features are common, users desire more professional integration.

## Contribution

The study identifies a gap between available app features and user needs, emphasizing the importance of professional feedback integration.

## Key findings

- Tracking history is the most common feature in adherence apps, but other desirable features are rarely present.
- Users highly value the ability to discuss their data with healthcare professionals, which is not commonly offered by current apps.
- Survey participants showed no significant differences in feature preferences based on regular medication use.

## Abstract

Medication nonadherence is a significant barrier to therapy success. Smartphone apps represent reasonable tools for simple adherence-enhancing interventions. Many adherence apps are available in app stores with diverse content, quality, and outputs. We define “output of an adherence app” as the processing and visualization of data recorded by the user and related to adherence. In 2016, Santo et al defined 5 desirable features in the output of adherence apps: tracking history, charts, statistics, rewards, and an exportable file. With this, a reference point to evaluate outputs of adherence apps was delivered. Identifying and fulfilling users’ needs are essential when developing an adherence app for patients’ self-management and professional adherence services, such as therapy support provided by health care professionals (HCPs).

We aimed to investigate the smartphone app market regarding desirable features in the outputs, explore the users’ needs, and evaluate the concordance.

We searched for smartphone adherence apps in the 2 largest commercial app repositories by using keywords. Search results were screened for eligibility by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eligible, freely available apps were tested regarding desirable features in their output. We conducted 2 focus groups and a cross-sectional online survey to explore users’ needs. Survey participants rated their desire for features on a 7-point Likert scale. Focus groups were analyzed using the previously reported framework method. Descriptive statistics were calculated by median and IQR or mean and SD. We compared survey subgroups with a 2-tailed t test. A P value <.05 was considered statistically significant.

We screened 80 apps for eligibility and included 9 in our analyses. All desirable features were present, with tracking history being the most frequent feature (in 8/9 apps). Other desirable features were observed in 3 or fewer of the apps. Eight individuals participated in the 2 focus groups. During the focus groups, a total of 13 categories of desired features emerged. All 5 desirable features were rated as important in adherence apps. Three additional features were mentioned: (1) professional feedback regarding therapy or intake course, (2) additional recommendations based on intake course, and (3) option to discuss the data with an HCP. A total of 42 individuals participated in the online survey. Tracking history was the most desired (mean rating of 5.29) and rewards the least desired feature (mean rating of 2.81) in the output. There was ambivalence regarding professional feedback, statistics, and charts. Participants with or without regular medication use showed no significant differences.

The outputs delivered by freely available smartphone adherence apps only partly match users’ needs. Users showed a special interest in the interpretation of their data with an HCP. Therefore, adherence apps cannot substitute for the HCP but can be used to enhance current patient care.