ABSTRACT
Thousands of mHealth applications are developed every year, but few of these spread or ‘go viral’. Even clinical applications that provide health benefits and social value often linger after an initial pilot phase. An examination of common hindrances in low-income countries suggests that more subsidies and education of health care personnel are insufficient solutions. Instead we propose better a priori screening of mHealth applications based on four criteria that may largely determine whether an mHealth application will spread. Further, we illustrate how using these criteria forms a good basis for involving ‘impact investors’ in the development of mHealth applications. This can reduce risks for public health care providers and increase the likelihood of success.
SPECIAL ISSUE:
Responsible Editor Nawi Ng, Umeå University, Sweden
Responsible Editor Nawi Ng, Umeå University, Sweden
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the anonymous referees for their valuable inputs, and the participants of the STIAS-Wallenberg Roundtable forum on mHealth. The article was published thanks to financial support from the Wallenberg Foundation and Umeå University.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Ethics and consent
Not relevant.
Paper context
Few mHealth apps survive and spread after the initial pilot study, even when they function well. This paper suggests an alternative approach, based on the characteristics of the few mHealth applications that go ‘viral’ in the sense that they spread rapidly without much advertising or subsidies. Proposals for new mHealth apps should fulfil four criteria that we identify, and be financed in ways that create the right incentives and access to expansion capital.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Stefan Fölster
SF is the sole author of this paper.