Recently, I posted on a controversial healthcare application that claims to treat seasonal depression. In my post, I talked about the ridiculous app and wondered if the App Store approval process needed to be tweaked when it came to medical and healthcare apps. Then I started wondering if there are actual medical standards the App Store has in place. There was a nice write up done by PC World talking about how the lack of overall set standards are hurting developers and the end users. But what about medical standards in the App Store Approval process?  That’ll be the discussion of this post.

PC World:

It’s OK to post an iPhone app that guides users to (legal) marijuana suppliers, but it’s not OK to post a goofy little app that turns the iPhone into a simulated pot pipe. What’s the difference? Beats me, but it’s becoming clearer and clearer that Apple’s App Store ayatollahs are way too heavy handed and need to lighten up. They are hurting consumers, developers, and ultimately, the company they’re supposed to protect.

The problem is Apple refuses to tell what the OVERALL standards clearly are. They have some set rules, but their approach to controversial issues is to handle them on a case by case basis. The lack of standards can clearly hurt when it comes to apps such as the "Blue Light Therapy" App.

The description of the blue light therapy app is in itself hilarious. (iTunes link). "…clinically proven to fight seasonal depression…." Then a the end "….not intended to diagnose, treat, or cure any disease…". So….Apple rejects goofy apps that mimic a hookah burning tobacco because it doesn’t meet their "standards", but an app that contradicts it’s purpose in it’s own description is totally okay? Interesting….

There is actually a nice site that describes a lot of the App Store rules and how the approval process works/doesn’t work. I searched the web trying to see if there were any sort of standards for Medical/Healthcare Applications submitted to the App Store but I couldn’t find any. If there aren’t even a set of clearly defined standards for the overall app store, then one would assume there definitely wouldn’t be any sort of of higher standards for healthcare or medical apps.

The beauty of the App Store is that anyone with an innovative idea can develop an application. At the same time, anyone with a shady idea, especially medically or healthcare related can develop an application as well. The problem with medical and healthcare apps is, it’s harder for people outside of healthcare to see if they are actually useful. Bringing more scrutiny to the Medical or Healthcare approval process could lead to bigger headaches and issues with an all too familiar slippery slope.

Medicine is a constantly changing field, and there are medical applications in the App Store that are clearly outdated. It should be up to healthcare provider to realize this and it would be too difficult for Apple to police these applications. They don’t exactly know what standard of care is. I don’t think

Apple needs to have a doctor or healthcare provider on their approval board, but for apps in the medical or healthcare category, why not have a simple link in the iTunes description where you can voice a complaint easily? Or better yet, why not reject apps that contradict their healing powers in their own description? Until then, we’ll be here trying to keep you up to date….

Related Posts:

1. New Blue Light Therapy App a Bit Shady. Does App Store Approval Process Need to Take This Into Account?
2. Apple Busts Scam Applications in App Store, But Did They Forget Some Medical Apps?
3. Medical section for iPhone is plagued by non-medical apps

A new healthcare app just released on the market claims to treat seasonal depression, called BluWave. Dr. Grohol has an entertaining read about how this app is a bit dubious. He gives great clinical research data, and how the makers use shady research to market this device. The app claims to use

"Light Emitting Diode (LED) technology to deliver blue light adjustable in specific Nanometers (nm). Blue light therapy has been clinically proven to combat seasonal affective disorder (SAD), depression, fatigue and general body clock issues".

I’m not too interested in this therapy, but I thought the way the company backs up their claims was interesting.

This reminded me of the whole App Store approval process. If you put out a medical app or healthcare app that doesn’t really work, should the App be taken out of the store?

For those of us in the medical profession, it’s easy to look up clinical research, but what about the unsuspecting millions of iPhone users who don’t know better? People might actually delay getting medical treatment because they want to try out this App. Even if it doesn’t cause any harm, you’re still out the $1.99 that you paid for the app. As more healthcare apps like this get released, it’ll be interesting to see how they will be regulated in the App Store marketplace. Unfortunately, the approval process is already a headache, with developers clearly frustrated.

Quote from Dr. Grohol’s article:

"So you’d think they’ve done their own clinical studies to actually examine a cell phone’s effectiveness using this software. On the “Clinical Studies” link on their website, they link to such rigorous journals as “Live Science,” “CNN Health,” and “Modern Medicine.” None of the links demonstrate the use of this particular software, but are instead about the potential uses and benefits of clinically-tested blue light therapies. The one study that comes close to providing evidence for their software was never published in a peer-reviewed journal (it’s a “white paper,” meaning its methodologies were never subjected to professional scrutiny)."

Related Posts:

1. What Exactly are the App Store’s Medical Standards?
2. Agamatrix glucose meter may get FDA approval for direct iPhone connection
3. Apple Busts Scam Applications in App Store, But Did They Forget Some Medical Apps?