Medical Student Appraisal

Summary

Background: The rapidly growing industry for mobile medical applications provides numerous smartphone resources designed for healthcare professionals. However, not all applications are equally useful in addressing the questions of early medical trainees.

Methods: Three popular, free, mobile healthcare applications were evaluated along with a Google^TM web search on both Apple^TM and Android^TM devices. Six medical students at a large academic hospital evaluated each application for a one-week period while on various clinical rotations.

Results: Google^TM was the most frequently used search method and presented multimedia resources but was inefficient for obtaining clinical management information. Epocrates^TM Pill ID feature was praised for its clinical utility. Medscape^TM had the highest satisfaction of search and excelled through interactive educational features. Micromedex^TM offered both FDA and off-label dosing for drugs.

Discussion: Google^TM was the preferred search method for questions related to basic disease processes and multimedia resources, but was inadequate for clinical management. Caution should also be exercised when using Google^TM in front of patients. Medscape^TM was the most appealing application due to a broad scope of content and educational features relevant to medical trainees. Students should also be cognizant of how mobile technology may be perceived by their evaluators to avoid false impressions.

Citation: Dattilo J, Khalifian S, Markman T, Sampognaro P, Mitchell S, Weeks S. Medical student appraisal: searching on smartphones. Appl Clin Inf 2013; 4: 53–60

http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2012-10-CR-0047

Keywords

Application - mobile health - electronics - smartphone

• References

• 1 Steel Media Ventures.. App Store Stats Summary. 148Apps; 2012. Accessed October 22, 2012. Available from: http://148apps.biz/app-store-metrics
• 2 AppBrain. Android Operating System Statistics. 2012. Accessed December 4, 2012. Available from: http://www.appbrain.com/stats
• 3 Apple. Apple’s App Store Downloads Top 25 Billion. Apple Press Info; 2012. Accessed December 4, 2012. Available from: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2012/03/05Apples-App-Store-Downloads-Top-25-Bil lion.html
• 4 Velazco C. Google’s play store hits 25 billion app downloads, kicks off five day sale to celebrate. Tech-Crunch; 2012. Accessed December 4, 2012. Available from: http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/26/google-play-store-25-billion-app-downloads
• 5 Chomutare T, Fernandez-Luque L, Arsand E, Hartvigsen G. Features of mobile diabetes applications: review of the literature and analysis of current applications compared against evidence-based guidelines. J Med Internet Res 2011; 13: e65. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222161/?tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
• 6 Epocrates. Epocrates essentials for Apple iOS. 2012. Accessed December 4, 2012. Available from: http://www.epocrates.com/mobile/iphone/essentials
• 7 iTunes. Medscape for iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad on the iTunes App Store. 2012. Accessed December 4, 2012. Available from: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/medscape/id321367289?mt=8
• 8 Thomson Reuters. Micromedex Mobile. 2012. Accessed December 4, 2012. Available from: http://health-care.thomsonreuters.com/micromedexMobile/drugInformation/index.html
• 9 Sarasohn-Kahn J. How smartphones are changing health care for consmers and providers. California Healthcare Foundation; 2010. Accessed December 4, 2012. Available from: http://www.chcf.org/-publications/2010/04/how-smartphones-are-changing-health-care-for-consumers-and-providers
• 10 Kiser K. 25 ways to use your smartphone. Physicians share their favorite uses and apps. Minn Med 2011; 94: 22-29. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21560878
• 11 Franko OI, Tirrell TF. Smartphone app use among medical providers in ACGME training programs. J Med Syst 2012; 36: 3135-3139. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22052129
• 12 Goto Y, Nagase T. Oncology information on the Internet. J Clin Oncol 2012; 42: 368-374. Available from: http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/42/5/368.long
• 13 Eysenbach G. The impact of the Internet on cancer outcomes. CA Cancer J Clin 2003; 53: 356-371. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15224975
• 14 Gerber BS, Eiser AR. The patient-physician relationship in the internet age: Future prospects and the research agenda. J Med Internet Res 2001; 3: e15. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1761896/?tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
• 15 Vigoda MM, Rothman B, Green JA. Shortcomings and challenges of information system adoption. Anesthesiol Clin 2011; 29: 397-412. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21871402
• 16 Gill PS, Kamath A, Gill TS. Distraction: an assessment of smartphone usage in health care work settings. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2012; 5: 105-114. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3437811&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
• 17 Smith S. Yale Medical School iPad Program. 2012. Accessed December 4, 2012. Available from: http://clc.yale.edu/2012/04/03/yale-medical-school-ipad-program
• 18 University of Arizona.. ArizonaMed iPad Pilot Program. 2012. Accessed December 4, 2012. Available from: http://azmed.mobi
• 19 Horowitz BT. iPad program launches at University of Pennsylvania Medical School. eWeek; 2012. Accessed December 4, 2012. Available from: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Health-Care-IT/iPad-Pilot-Launches-at-University-of-Pennsylvania-Medical-School-853103
• 20 Watson K. iPad apps for medical students. University of Minnesota Medical Education: University of Minnesota; 2011. Accessed December 4, 2012. Available from: https://www.meded.umn.edu/students ipad_apps.php