You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 105, Issue 11
  • Children and young people’s concerns and needs relating to their use of health technology to self-manage long-term conditions: a scoping review

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Adolescent health
Children and young people’s concerns and needs relating to their use of health technology to self-manage long-term conditions: a scoping review
  1. Sarah Blower1,
  2. Veronica Swallow2,
  3. Camila Maturana3,
  4. Simon Stones4,
  5. Robert Phillips5,
  6. Paul Dimitri6,
  7. Zoe Marshman7,
  8. Peter Knapp8,
  9. Alexandra Dean3,
  10. Steven Higgins9,
  11. Ian Kellar10,
  12. Penny Curtis11,
  13. Nathaniel Mills12,
  14. Jacqueline Martin-Kerry1
  1. 1 Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
  2. 2 College of Health, Wellbeing & Life Sciences, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK
  3. 3 York Trials Unit, University of York, York, North Yorkshire, UK
  4. 4 School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
  5. 5 Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, North Yorkshire, UK
  6. 6 NIHR Children and Young People MedTech Cooperative, Sheffield Children's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
  7. 7 School of Clinical Dentistry, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
  8. 8 Department of Health Sciences and Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, North Yorkshire, UK
  9. 9 School of Education, University of Durham, Durham, UK
  10. 10 School of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
  11. 11 School of Nursing and Midwifery, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
  12. 12 NIHR Children and Young People MedTech Co-operative and NIHR Devices for Dignity MedTech Co-operative, Sheffield Children's NHS Trust, Sheffield, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jacqueline Martin-Kerry, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK; jackie.martin-kerry{at}york.ac.uk

Abstract

Background The use of patient-facing health technologies to manage long-term conditions is increasing; however, children and young people may have particular concerns or needs before deciding to use different health technologies.

Aims To identify children and young people’s reported concerns or needs in relation to using health technologies to self-manage long-term conditions.

Methods A scoping review was conducted. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL in February 2019. Searches were limited to papers published between January 2008 and February 2019. We included any health technology used to manage long-term conditions. A thematic synthesis of the data from the included studies was undertaken. We engaged children with long-term conditions (and parents) to support review design, interpretation of findings and development of recommendations.

Results Thirty-eight journal articles were included, describing concerns or needs expressed by n=970 children and/or young people aged 5–18 years. Most included studies were undertaken in high-income countries with children aged 11 years and older. Studies examined concerns with mobile applications (n=14), internet (n=9), social media (n=3), interactive online treatment programmes (n=3), telehealth (n=1), devices (n=3) or a combination (n=5). Children and young people’s main concerns were labelling and identity; accessibility; privacy and reliability; and trustworthiness of information.

Discussion This review highlights important concerns that children and young people may have before using technology to self-manage their long-term condition. In future, research should involve children and young people throughout the development of technology, from identifying their unmet needs through to design and evaluation of interventions.

  • technology
  • adolescent health
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2020-319103

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    What is already known on this topic?

    • The use of patient-facing technologies for children and young people (CYP) to self-manage long-term conditions (LTCs) is rapidly increasing.

    • There are many studies exploring the use or development of new health technology but few that explored CYP’s concerns about the use of this technology.

    • It is important to obtain stakeholders’ views (particularly CYP’s) about their use of technologies or treatments.

    What this study adds?

    • We have identified key concerns of CYP about their use of health technology to self-manage LTCs.

    • Concerns included labelling and identity; accessibility; privacy and reliability; and trustworthiness.

    • It is important to understand and address these concerns as they are potential barriers to engagement with health technologies

    Background

    Patient-facing health technologies (eg, virtual reality, augmented reality, telehealth and medical devices) have the potential to address key healthcare challenges, and their use is rapidly expanding.1 Increasingly, adults with long-term conditions (LTCs) self-manage their health,2 sometimes with remote clinical support and monitoring. This approach could reduce health system burden, while offering convenience for clinician–patient engagement.3 There is growing interest in the use of technologies to support children and young people (CYP) with LTCs.4

    Involving CYP with LTCs in developing and using health technologies provides opportunities for enhancing their health and well-being.1 To date, there is limited research into the challenges of using technology and concerns felt by end-users, particularly CYP. Recent systematic reviews highlight privacy and security issues associated with the use of mobile health applications (apps) for CYP4–6 and CYP wanting access to safe, moderated forums to communicate with peers.7 For example, the Brushing RemInder 4 Good Oral HealTh (BRIGHT) trial8 used a short messaging service to encourage CYP to brush their teeth. During the intervention development and trial design, CYP expressed concerns over who could access their mobile phone numbers and how they could stop receiving text messages. Recent studies7 9 suggest that CYP may require specific information and guidance on privacy, security and data confidentiality before participating in research involving healthcare technologies. This scoping review and associated stakeholder consultation aimed to identify empirical research reporting CYP’s concerns and needs relating to the use of health technologies to self-manage LTCs and develop recommendations for technology developers and researchers.

    Methods

    A scoping review10 was undertaken without quality assessments.11

    Search strategy

    Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched in February 2019 using a strategy developed with an information specialist and modified for each database (see online supplementary appendix 1). The search was limited to papers published between January 2008 and February 2019 to ensure relevance to current health technologies.

    Eligibility

    table 1 outlines the review inclusion and exclusion criteria.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Eligibility criteria for studies within this review

    Study selection

    Records were deduplicated in Endnote and managed using Covidence. JM-K screened title and abstracts, with 20% of records double-screened (SB and VS). Agreement rate and Cohen kappa coefficients were calculated to measure inter-rater reliability. Three reviewers (JM-K, SB and CM) undertook screening of full-text records independently. When uncertainty about inclusion arose, articles were discussed (JM-K, CM, SB and AD) until a consensus was reached.

    Data extraction

    Data were extracted by JM-K (with AD and CM each independently replicating extraction of 50% of the studies) using a prepiloted template. Data extracted included: lead author; year of publication; country; study participant details (age, number, sex and LTC); study design; setting where technology was used; retrospective or prospective use; concerns or information needed before using the technology; whether CYP were involved in the scoping or design of the technology; and any quotations to support the concerns extracted.

    Data synthesis

    Bubble plots highlight patterns and gaps in data and identify the number of included studies by country and publication year. Thematic analysis of the findings of each study was undertaken. JM-K and SB read through extracted qualitative (quotations and interpretation from the primary study authors) and quantitative data to identify concerns and needs and assign themes.12

    Stakeholder consultation

    Throughout the project, we engaged with CYP and parent stakeholders who had used health technologies to manage LTCs. To explore the context for this review from the perspective of CYP (April 2019), JM-K and SS facilitated a discussion with (n=4) stakeholders, two CYP aged 13 and 15 years and their mothers, to determine their views on concerns and informational needs.

    Following the review (October 2019), we shared the findings with CYP and parents from the NIHR Generation R Young Persons’ Advisory Group (YPAG). The consultation was a face-to-face meeting with 15 CYP (age 9–18 years) and 4 parents (who have children with LTC). Participants noted and discussed findings that interested or surprised them. Participants were invited to make recommendations for health professionals developing self-management support health technologies (based on the review findings) on Post-it notes and discuss these within the group. The outcomes of this discussion supplemented the review findings and informed the recommendations.

    Results

    Study selection

    A total of 18 365 unique records were identified through the electronic searches. There was a 95% agreement rate in the 3673 double-screened abstracts(moderate kappa agreements). No potentially eligible studies were missed. Single screening was undertaken for the remaining 14 692 records. Many excluded papers did not include CYP’s concerns or perspectives (eg, only proxy views from parents or clinicians), or reported the technology use outside the scope of this review. Thirty-eight studies were included (see figure 1).

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    PRISMA flow chart. CYP, children and young people; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

    Characteristics of included studies

    All studies (table 2) were published between 2009 and 2019 and undertaken in Australia13–15 (n=3), Canada16–22 (n=7), England23–31 (n=9), Italy32 (n=1), the Netherlands33 (n=1), New Zealand34 (n=1), Nigeria35 (n=1), Spain36 (n=1), Sweden37 38 (n=2), USA39–49 (n=11) and Wales50 (n=1). Studies included CYP with the following LTCs: asthma (n=7), type 1 diabetes (n=5), chronic kidney disease (n=3), cancer (n=3), obesity (n=3), cerebral palsy/spina bifida (n=2), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (n=2) and HIV, idiopathic scoliosis, colorectal conditions, chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalitis with n=1 study each. Figure 2 shows the distribution of studies by country and publication date.

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Included studies by publication date and country.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Summary of included studies (n=38)

    Most studies were exclusively qualitative (n=26, 68%),13 14 16 17 20–24 26 27 29–31 34 36–38 40 42–44 47–50 while other study designs such as user testing, pilot or feasibility studies and one randomised controlled trial each included some qualitative data (n=12, 32%).15 18 19 25 32 33 35 39 41 45 46 Only seven studies included participants under 11 years.17 24 26–28 31 34 The age range of CYP represented was 5–18 years.

    Technologies were categorised using a previously reported typology51: internet (eg, websites, forums, chat rooms and e-tools) (n=9)13 16 23 26 33–35 37 46; social media (dedicated platforms, eg, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram) (n=3)47–49; mHealth (eg, mobile phone apps and text messaging) (n=14)18 19 22 24 28 29 31 39–45; telehealth (eg, video conferencing and telephone consultations) (n=1)17; interactive online treatment programmes (n=3)14 15 50; and devices (eg, wearables and other devices/hardware)25 30 32 (n=3). Five studies involved combinations of technologies.20 21 27 36 38

    Concerns and needs expressed by CYP

    Regardless of technology type, many concerns reported by CYP were similar across studies (see table 3). There were four overarching themes, summarised below, with quotations illustrating key concerns in the words of CYP themselves (table 4). Full list of quotations per study is provided in online supplementary appendix 2.

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Summary of technologies and related concerns raised by CYP

    View this table:
    Table 4

    Quotations to illustrate identified themes

    Labelling and identity

    CYP were concerned that stigma could arise from technology visibility, for example, the potential for social embarrassment prevented them from using devices in public.14 Many technologies were designed to enable CYP to engage with an online community of users, which in some cases included other CYP from the healthy population, which led to CYPs’ concerns about cyberbullying.14 50 Some CYP felt that technologies involving online communities should have separate condition-specific spaces to reduce the risk of discrimination and support inclusivity.20 44 48 Suggestions included private messaging or chat options.20 Conversely, some CYP expressed concerns about technologies that exclusively brought together CYP with the same condition in forums or chatrooms.16

    Overall, there was a tension between the need for normalisation and the risk of discrimination. For some CYP, ‘being normal’ meant feeling part of a community of other CYP who shared their condition/s and experience/s; while for others, it was also about feeling included in a community of healthy peers.

    Accessibility

    This included usability concerns regarding the age and developmental appropriateness of content26 31 34 38 and risks associated with bringing CYP from a broad age range together in forums or chat rooms,28 such as an increase in perceived ‘noise’ that might prevent individual voices being heard and understood.16 CYP also expressed preferences for plain language and the absence of jargon or medical terminology that they would find difficult to understand.23 27 36

    CYP identified limited access to Wi-Fi in hospitals, at home and in the community as possible barriers to some technologies.26 29 Rules imposed in schools regarding mobile phone use were also highlighted.41 45

    CYP highlighted financial costs28 31 associated with using mobile data45 to access apps as well as the impact on device storage capacity43 and challenged the assumption that all CYP used social media or had access to smartphones.49

    Privacy

    Some privacy concerns were linked to technology visibility that may draw attention to an undisclosed condition.18 25 CYP highlighted the potential for unwanted attention35 44 and questioning that may arise from using a device.25 Concerns surrounding data sharing and confidentiality of personal information were also evident.14 22 33 39 48 CYP had preferences about whom they would share data with and were concerned about the perceived dangers and negative implications of sharing data widely.25 31 40 For example, the risks of being ‘hacked’13 26 and the importance of privacy settings24 in various social media platforms and apps; privacy related to content that CYP created50 and fears of being monitored or watched by parents and/or clinicians17 24 30 47 ; and the permanence of data on websites and apps.13

    Ultimately, CYP desired control over their data and privacy; they sought a balance between safety, confidentiality, anonymity and the option to foster connection with others by ‘putting a face to the name’21 and sharing personal information if they so choose.

    Trustworthiness and reliability

    CYP were generally wary of online information (through websites or apps)27 37 unless it was perceived to be from a trusted ‘official source’, for example, from recognisable organisations or endorsed by clinicians with expertise in their condition.23 26 29 36 38 They also raised concerns about images or content that could be perceived as overly negative or alarmist about their condition,36 48 although some CYP were concerned about images that they perceived to be unrealistic or idealised (particularly in relation to body image).37

    Some CYP expressed discomfort or unease with the introduction of technologies that reduce face-to-face contact with their clinician. CYP were particularly concerned about the potential for lack of clinician responsiveness19 47 and the impact on their ability to form an open, honest and therapeutic relationship17 as well as the risk of clinicians missing important non-verbal cues.13 30

    Linked to this, a general fear of misinterpretation was also identified.47 CYP expressed concerns that information recorded on devices (rather than in conversation) could land them in trouble with limited opportunity to explain their side of the story30

    Stakeholder consultation

    When discussing the findings with CYP and parents, they expressed surprise at the level of concern for cyberbullying in relation to using health technologies to manage an LTC. However, they concurred with concerns identified in the review relating to security of data and information. They were surprised by studies reporting that language was not age appropriate, as they presumed that mobile apps would at least be ‘word-friendly’ for children if that was the target end user. The group noted that CYP will have different reasons and motivations for using technology and felt it was important to ensure that CYP were involved early in technology development and to not underestimate the input and impact that CYP can have. They also suggested gamification to help young children with technology. The group felt incorporating passcodes, or other forms of security, was important to ensure data security and access.

    Discussion

    Main findings

    This review has highlighted CYP’s specific concerns about the use of technology to self-manage LTCs including labelling and identity; accessibility; privacy; and trustworthiness of information. Most studies were undertaken in high-income countries and mainly sought the views of CYP aged 11 years and older in relation to a wide range of health technologies. The focus on older CYP possibly reflects difficulties that researchers expect to encounter when undertaking research with children52 and indicates a gap in knowledge about the concerns of CYP under 11 years. The most common LTCs studied included type 1 diabetes, asthma and mental health conditions. Included studies generally had small samples. Many studies were excluded because they focused on the views and concerns of parents and/or clinicians only.

    Our findings in relation to the literature

    The use of health technologies by CYP to manage LTCs is increasing with many studies describing their development, acceptability and use by CYP45 53–61; effectiveness53 62–64; and compliance by CYP.41 57 However, there is limited literature on the concerns that CYP may have when (or before) using a health technology for self-managing their LTC, and no review has specifically explored these concerns.

    Our results indicate that the views of CYP with LTC are under-represented in the literature. Many potentially eligible studies reported solely on clinicians’ or parents’ views or failed to separate out concerns expressed by CYP and adults. As previously reported, primary studies exploring CYP’s concerns tend to involve healthy populations63 65 66 (eg, schoolchildren) rather than CYP with LTCs, even when evaluating the use of technologies that are designed for use by CYP with LTCs. Authentic user involvement in technology design and research is important and increasingly required by funders; CYP with LTCs are uniquely placed to explain their concerns about new technologies.

    We did not find any studies examining CYP concerns regarding the use of virtual or augmented reality technologies to self-manage LTCs. This may reflect wider-reaching tendencies by researchers to only seek proxy views about how CYP use technology to manage an LTC.

    Our findings are consistent with a previous review on the use of digital clinical communication (eg, telehealth) for CYP with long-term mental health conditions reporting that most studies focused only on satisfaction, acceptance or feasibility of the technology.67 While these issues are important, a broader focus on general concerns contributes to our understanding of potential barriers to technology use.

    We identified a range of concerns, several clustered around a theme of labelling and identity and highlighting that CYP with LTCs are a diverse group, and those with the same condition may have differing concerns about the use of interactive technologies. CYP varied in whether they wanted their condition to be known, to interact with others with the same condition, or with healthy CYP. These concerns are supported by previous literature that highlights variations in how CYP wish to use online forums.68 69 The potential risk of cyberbullying identified in some studies is supported by a recent review about risks associated with the use of social media by CYP.70 In addition, CYP were particularly cautious about stigma arising from the use of technologies to manage mental health conditions and sexually transmitted infections.71

    Accessibility of the technology, through age-appropriate language, style and physical access, was important. This concern is supported by other literature involving CYP without LTCs, for instance the ability of school-aged CYP to identify and access information about sexual health.72 The importance of language was also recognised as important in some studies.69

    A not unexpected key theme in this review was privacy.72–75 Our findings complement a recent review calling for research that explores CYP’s privacy and data security issues when using digital health technology to manage LTCs.76

    Trust in the technology was another important factor to determine whether CYP would use a particular technology to manage a LTC. A recent review highlighted the importance of clinicians understanding CYP’s needs in relation to their use of health technologies and also to help CYP identify appropriate technology.4 A study examining the concerns of CYP (without LTCs) also highlighted the concern, consistent across all age groups, of trust for health-related social media.77

    Based on the concerns raised in the included studies within this review, we have developed a set of recommendations in conjunction with our CYP and parent stakeholders that we feel are important for future development and use of technology by CYP with LTCs (see box 1).

    Box 1

    Recommendations

    The following recommendations derive from our findings and are supported by the project stakeholders:

    • Ensure any technology for use by CYP is age and developmentally appropriate (in terms of language and style; if the technology is social media, then carefully consider the appropriate age range of participants).

    • CYP will want to use technology for different reasons and with different motivations (eg, some will want to use technology that connects them to others with the same condition for support, while others will not want to be segregated by their condition). Give CYP the option of how they use technology. Technology developers should involve CYP in the design and development of health technologies.

    • CYP may have concerns about using technology to manage an LTC, and these concerns should be considered alongside any potential benefits for CYP.

    • Trust will be an important factor for CYP using technology for their health; they will want to know how the technology has been developed, curated, tested and used previously in order to make an informed decision about whether they want to use it.

    • For technology involving images, recognise that CYP may not filter what they see and some may be surprised or concerned by distressing images (eg, on closed Facebook groups). A careful and sensitive approach should be taken to minimise CYP’s concerns.

    • Consider making the technology (eg, forums or text on websites) not overly negative, particularly consider moderation for peer communication, to avoid causing unnecessary anxiety for end users.

    • For any technology involving data, explain to CYP who will have access to their information, how their information will be stored and how CYP can change such access. Consider having a passcode or biometric protection for access to mobile apps, or where the operating system allows, prompting the use of these functions. Where messaging occurs, consider end-to-end encryption and self-destructing messages.

    • Recognise that CYP are taught digital safety in school, including caution around sharing their information, and may feel that doing so for the purposes of health technology contradicts this. They will want to know who will have access to their information and why.

    In addition, stakeholders recommended the following:

    • Do not under-estimate CYP’s capabilities and the important input they can provide to technology development.

    • Consider gamification within technologies for younger CYP with LTCs.

    • When developing technology for use by CYP to manage LTCs, involve the appropriate group of CYP early in the process to ensure that the technology will be something they will want to use and will meet their needs. For example, if you plan to develop technology for CYP aged Y years with condition X, then work with CYP that are of this age with this condition.

    • Consider whether health inequalities may be created or exacerbated if the technology has a financial cost associated with it.

    • Tell CYP what the actual impact of using the technology will be for them (eg, will it help them, are there any risks).

    Strengths and limitations of the review

    A strength of this review is its broad focus on technologies and LTCs in order to identify all information about CYPs’ concerns regarding use of technology to manage LTCs. We used recognised processes to ensure methodological rigour and consulted with CYP and parents. Due to the volume of records identified, we only reviewed full texts of articles that mentioned or alluded to concerns within the abstract. We did not include positive preferences such as what CYP liked or preferred (eg, design features and interactivity elements). We note that many studies focus on positive preferences of CYP for technologies, and this may be an avenue for future research. Many of the included studies were conducted in high-income countries and findings may not generalisable to CYP in low-income countries.

    Acknowledgments

    We would like to thank the Liverpool Generation R Young Persons’ Advisory Group (YPAG) members (children and young people (CYP) and parents) for their insightful comments and contributions to the development of the recommendations within this review. We would like to thank Jennifer Preston and Sammy Ainsworth for facilitating engagement with the YPAG. We would also like to thank our CYP and parents who were involved on April 2019. We would also like to thank David Torgerson, who is a coinvestigator of this project and provided thoughtful input throughout the duration of the review. We would also like to thank Melissa Harden from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York for developing and running the search strategy and deduplicating the records. We would also like to thank Stephanie Prady for proof-reading and editing the final version of the manuscript.

    References

    1. ↵
      2. Dimitri P
      . Child health technology: shaping the future of paediatrics and child health and improving NHS productivity. Arch Dis Child 2019;104:184–8.doi:10.1136/archdischild-2017-314309 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30154177
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      2. Chew-Graham C
      . Self-Management in long-term conditions – where does the health service sit? Health Expect 2015;18:603–4.doi:10.1111/hex.12399 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26406897
      OpenUrlPubMed
    3. ↵
      2. Walker RC ,
      3. Tong A ,
      4. Howard K , et al
      . Patient expectations and experiences of remote monitoring for chronic diseases: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Int J Med Inform 2019;124:78–85.doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.01.013 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30784430
      OpenUrlPubMed
    4. ↵
      2. Aldiss S ,
      3. Baggott C ,
      4. Gibson F , et al
      . A critical review of the use of technology to provide psychosocial support for children and young people with long-term conditions. J Pediatr Nurs 2015;30:87–101.doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2014.09.014 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25316197
      OpenUrlPubMed
    5. ↵
      2. Dehling T ,
      3. Gao F ,
      4. Schneider S , et al
      . Exploring the far side of mobile health: information security and privacy of mobile health Apps on iOS and android. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2015;3:e8. doi:10.2196/mhealth.3672 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25599627
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    6. ↵
      2. Majeed-Ariss R ,
      3. Baildam E ,
      4. Campbell M , et al
      . Apps and adolescents: a systematic review of adolescents' use of mobile phone and tablet Apps that support personal management of their chronic or long-term physical conditions. J Med Internet Res 2015;17:e287. doi:10.2196/jmir.5043 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26701961
      OpenUrlPubMed
    7. ↵
      2. Waite-Jones J ,
      3. Swallow V ,
      4. Smith J , et al
      . Developing a mobile-app to aid young people’s self-management of chronic rheumatic disease: a qualitative study. Rheumatology 2017;56.doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kex356.001
    8. ↵
      2. Marshman Z ,
      3. Ainsworth H ,
      4. Chestnutt IG , et al
      . Brushing reminder 4 good oral health (bright) trial: does an SMS behaviour change programme with a classroom-based session improve the oral health of young people living in deprived areas? A study protocol of a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2019;20:452. doi:10.1186/s13063-019-3538-6 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31337437
      OpenUrlPubMed
    9. ↵
      2. Nightingale R ,
      3. Wirz L ,
      4. Cook W , et al
      . Collaborating with parents of children with chronic conditions and professionals to design, develop and Pre-pilot plant (the parent learning needs and preferences assessment tool). J Pediatr Nurs 2017;35:90–7.doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2017.03.008 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28728776
      OpenUrlPubMed
    10. ↵
      2. Arksey H ,
      3. O'Malley L
      . Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005;8:19–32.doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    11. ↵
      2. Tricco AC ,
      3. Lillie E ,
      4. Zarin W , et al
      . PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:467–73.doi:10.7326/M18-0850 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30178033
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    12. ↵
      2. Thomas J ,
      3. Harden A
      . Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008;8:45. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18616818
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    13. ↵
      2. Bradford S ,
      3. Rickwood D
      . Young people's views on electronic mental health assessment: prefer to type than talk? J Child Fam Stud 2015;24:1213–21.doi:10.1007/s10826-014-9929-0 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25960628
      OpenUrlPubMed
    14. ↵
      2. Clark LH ,
      3. Hudson JL ,
      4. Dunstan DA , et al
      . Capturing the Attitudes of Adolescent Males’ Towards Computerised Mental Health Help-Seeking. Aust Psychol 2018;53:416–26.doi:10.1111/ap.12341
      OpenUrl
    15. ↵
      2. Wuthrich VM ,
      3. Rapee RM ,
      4. Cunningham MJ , et al
      . A randomized controlled trial of the cool teens CD-ROM computerized program for adolescent anxiety. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2012;51:261–70.doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2011.12.002 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22365462
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    16. ↵
      2. Barnfather A ,
      3. Stewart M ,
      4. Magill-Evans J , et al
      . Computer-mediated support for adolescents with cerebral palsy or spina bifida. Comput Inform Nurs 2011;29:24–33. quiz 34-5.doi:10.1097/NCN.0b013e3181f9db63 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21099541
      OpenUrlPubMed
    17. ↵
      2. Boydell KM ,
      3. Volpe T ,
      4. Pignatiello A
      . A qualitative study of young people's perspectives on receiving psychiatric services via televideo. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2010;19:5–11.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20119561
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. ↵
      2. Cafazzo JA ,
      3. Casselman M ,
      4. Hamming N , et al
      . Design of an mHealth APP for the self-management of adolescent type 1 diabetes: a pilot study. J Med Internet Res 2012;14:e70. doi:10.2196/jmir.2058 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22564332
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    19. ↵
      2. Jibb LA ,
      3. Stevens BJ ,
      4. Nathan PC , et al
      . Perceptions of adolescents with cancer related to a pain management APP and its evaluation: qualitative study nested within a multicenter pilot feasibility study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018;6:e80. doi:10.2196/mhealth.9319 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29625951
      OpenUrlPubMed
    20. ↵
      2. Knibbe TJ ,
      3. McPherson AC ,
      4. Gladstone B , et al
      . "It's all about incentive": Social technology as a potential facilitator for self-determined physical activity participation for young people with physical disabilities. Dev Neurorehabil 2018;21:521–30.doi:10.1080/17518423.2017.1370501 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28960125
      OpenUrlPubMed
    21. ↵
      2. Nicholas DB ,
      3. Picone G ,
      4. Vigneux A , et al
      . Evaluation of an online peer support network for adolescents with chronic kidney disease. J Technol Hum Serv 2009;27:23–33.doi:10.1080/15228830802462063
      OpenUrl
    22. ↵
      2. Rivera J ,
      3. McPherson AC ,
      4. Hamilton J , et al
      . User-Centered design of a mobile APP for weight and health management in adolescents with complex health needs: qualitative study. JMIR Form Res 2018;2:e7. doi:10.2196/formative.8248 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30684409
      OpenUrlPubMed
    23. ↵
      2. Brigden A ,
      3. Barnett J ,
      4. Parslow RM , et al
      . Using the Internet to cope with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis in adolescence: a qualitative study. BMJ Paediatr Open 2018;2:e000299. doi:10.1136/bmjpo-2018-000299 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30167477
      OpenUrlPubMed
    24. ↵
      2. Cai RA ,
      3. Beste D ,
      4. Chaplin H , et al
      . Developing and evaluating JIApp: acceptability and usability of a smartphone APP system to improve self-management in young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017;5:e121. doi:10.2196/mhealth.7229 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28811270
      OpenUrlPubMed
    25. ↵
      2. Howard S ,
      3. Lang A ,
      4. Sharples S , et al
      . See I told you I was taking it! - Attitudes of adolescents with asthma towards a device monitoring their inhaler use: Implications for future design. Appl Ergon 2017;58:224–37.doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2016.06.018 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27633217
      OpenUrlPubMed
    26. ↵
      2. Huby K ,
      3. Swallow V ,
      4. Smith T , et al
      . Children and young people's views on access to a web-based application to support personal management of long-term conditions: a qualitative study. Child Care Health Dev 2017;43:126–32.doi:10.1111/cch.12394 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27554643
      OpenUrlPubMed
    27. ↵
      2. Nightingale R ,
      3. Hall A ,
      4. Gelder C , et al
      . Desirable components for a customized, home-based, digital care-management APP for children and young people with long-term, chronic conditions: a qualitative exploration. J Med Internet Res 2017;19:e235. doi:10.2196/jmir.7760 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28676470
      OpenUrlPubMed
    28. ↵
      2. Powell L ,
      3. Parker J ,
      4. Robertson N , et al
      . Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: is there an APP for that? suitability assessment of Apps for children and young people with ADHD. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017;5:e145. doi:10.2196/mhealth.7371 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28978497
      OpenUrlPubMed
    29. ↵
      2. Simons L ,
      3. Valentine AZ ,
      4. Falconer CJ , et al
      . Developing mHealth remote monitoring technology for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a qualitative study eliciting user priorities and needs. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2016;4:e31. doi:10.2196/mhealth.5009 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27009498
      OpenUrlPubMed
    30. ↵
      2. Stewart AC ,
      3. Gannon KN ,
      4. Beresford F , et al
      . Adolescent and caregivers' experiences of electronic adherence assessment in paediatric problematic severe asthma. J Child Health Care 2018;22:238–50.doi:10.1177/1367493517753082 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29325420
      OpenUrlPubMed
    31. ↵
      2. Waite-Jones JM ,
      3. Majeed-Ariss R ,
      4. Smith J , et al
      . Young people's, parents', and professionals' views on required components of mobile Apps to support self-management of juvenile arthritis: qualitative study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018;6:e25. doi:10.2196/mhealth.9179 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29351898
      OpenUrlPubMed
    32. ↵
      2. Donzelli S ,
      3. Zaina F ,
      4. Martinez G , et al
      . Adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis and their parents have a positive attitude towards the Thermobrace monitor: results from a survey. Scoliosis Spinal Disord 2017;12:12.doi:10.1186/s13013-017-0119-x pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28405634
      OpenUrlPubMed
    33. ↵
      2. Maurice-Stam H ,
      3. Scholten L ,
      4. de Gee EA , et al
      . Feasibility of an online cognitive behavioral-based group intervention for adolescents treated for cancer: a pilot study. J Psychosoc Oncol 2014;32:310–21.doi:10.1080/07347332.2014.897290 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24611453
      OpenUrlPubMed
    34. ↵
      2. Thabrew H ,
      3. Stasiak K ,
      4. Garcia-Hoyos V , et al
      . Game for health: how eHealth approaches might address the psychological needs of children and young people with long-term physical conditions. J Paediatr Child Health 2016;52:1012–8.doi:10.1111/jpc.13271 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27529150
      OpenUrlPubMed
    35. ↵
      2. Dulli L ,
      3. Ridgeway K ,
      4. Packer C , et al
      . An online support group intervention for adolescents living with HIV in Nigeria: a pre-post test study. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2018;4:e12397. doi:10.2196/12397 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30487116
      OpenUrlPubMed
    36. ↵
      2. Domínguez M ,
      3. Sapiña L
      . "Others Like Me". An Approach to the Use of the Internet and Social Networks in Adolescents and Young Adults Diagnosed with Cancer. J Cancer Educ 2017;32:885–91.doi:10.1007/s13187-016-1055-9 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27251633
      OpenUrlPubMed
    37. ↵
      2. Holmberg C ,
      3. Berg C ,
      4. Dahlgren J , et al
      . Health literacy in a complex digital media landscape: pediatric obesity patients' experiences with online weight, food, and health information. Health Informatics J 2019;25:1343–57.doi:10.1177/1460458218759699 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29499615
      OpenUrlPubMed
    38. ↵
      2. Nordfeldt S ,
      3. Angarne-Lindberg T ,
      4. Nordwall M , et al
      . As facts and Chats go online, what is important for adolescents with type 1 diabetes? PLoS One 2013;8:e67659. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0067659 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23805322
      OpenUrlPubMed
    39. ↵
      2. Britto MT ,
      3. Munafo JK ,
      4. Schoettker PJ , et al
      . Pilot and feasibility test of adolescent-controlled text messaging reminders. Clin Pediatr 2012;51:114–21.doi:10.1177/0009922811412950 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22019792
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    40. ↵
      2. Carpenter DM ,
      3. Geryk LL ,
      4. Sage A , et al
      . Exploring the theoretical pathways through which asthma APP features can promote adolescent self-management. Transl Behav Med 2016;6:509–18.doi:10.1007/s13142-016-0402-z pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27118115
      OpenUrlPubMed
    41. ↵
      2. Mulvaney SA ,
      3. Ho Y-X ,
      4. Cala CM , et al
      . Assessing adolescent asthma symptoms and adherence using mobile phones. J Med Internet Res 2013;15:e141. doi:10.2196/jmir.2413 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23864345
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    42. ↵
      2. Ramsey RR ,
      3. Carmody JK ,
      4. Holbein CE , et al
      . Examination of the uses, needs, and preferences for health technology use in adolescents with asthma. J Asthma 2019;56:964–72.doi:10.1080/02770903.2018.1514048 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30207802
      OpenUrlPubMed
    43. ↵
      2. Raval MV ,
      3. Taylor N ,
      4. Piper K , et al
      . Pediatric patient and caregiver preferences in the development of a mobile health application for management of surgical colorectal conditions. J Med Syst 2017;41:105. doi:10.1007/s10916-017-0750-3 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28540617
      OpenUrlPubMed
    44. ↵
      2. Roberts CA ,
      3. Geryk LL ,
      4. Sage AJ , et al
      . Adolescent, caregiver, and Friend preferences for integrating social support and communication features into an asthma self-management APP. J Asthma 2016;53:948–54.doi:10.3109/02770903.2016.1171339 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27116540
      OpenUrlPubMed
    45. ↵
      2. Schneider T ,
      3. Baum L ,
      4. Amy A , et al
      . I have most of my asthma under control and I know how my asthma acts: users' perceptions of asthma self-management mobile APP tailored for adolescents. Health Informatics J 1882;201914604582.
    46. ↵
      2. Vaala SE ,
      3. Lee JM ,
      4. Hood KK , et al
      . Sharing and helping: predictors of adolescents' willingness to share diabetes personal health information with Peers. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018;25:135–41.doi:10.1093/jamia/ocx051 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28575462
      OpenUrlPubMed
    47. ↵
      2. van Rensburg SH ,
      3. Klingensmith K ,
      4. McLaughlin P , et al
      . Patient-Provider communication over social media: perspectives of adolescents with psychiatric illness. Health Expect 2016;19:112–20.doi:10.1111/hex.12334 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25581724
      OpenUrlPubMed
    48. ↵
      2. Woolford SJ ,
      3. Esperanza Menchaca ADM ,
      4. Sami A , et al
      . Let's face it: patient and parent perspectives on incorporating a Facebook group into a multidisciplinary weight management program. Child Obes 2013;9:305–10.doi:10.1089/chi.2013.0047 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23869854
      OpenUrlPubMed
    49. ↵
      2. Yi-Frazier JP ,
      3. Cochrane K ,
      4. Mitrovich C , et al
      . Using Instagram as a modified application of Photovoice for Storytelling and sharing in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Qual Health Res 2015;25:1372–82.doi:10.1177/1049732315583282 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25904674
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    50. ↵
      2. Bevan Jones R ,
      3. Thapar A ,
      4. Rice F , et al
      . A web-based psychoeducational intervention for adolescent depression: design and development of MoodHwb. JMIR Ment Health 2018;5:e13. doi:10.2196/mental.8894 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29449202
      OpenUrlPubMed
    51. ↵
      2. Devine KA ,
      3. Viola AS ,
      4. Coups EJ , et al
      . Digital health interventions for adolescent and young adult cancer survivors. JCO Clin Cancer Inform 2018;2:1–15.doi:10.1200/CCI.17.00138 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30652583
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    52. ↵
      2. Coyne I
      . Research with children and young people: the issue of parental (proxy) consent. Children & Society 2010;24:227–37.
      OpenUrl
    53. ↵
      2. Virella Pérez YI ,
      3. Medlow S ,
      4. Ho J , et al
      . Mobile and web-based Apps that support self-management and transition in young people with chronic illness: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2019;21:e13579. doi:10.2196/13579 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31746773
      OpenUrlPubMed
    54. ↵
      2. Ridgers ND ,
      3. Timperio A ,
      4. Brown H , et al
      . Wearable activity Tracker use among Australian adolescents: usability and acceptability study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018;6:e86. doi:10.2196/mhealth.9199 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29643054
      OpenUrlPubMed
    55. ↵
      2. Sonderegger A ,
      3. Sauer J
      . The influence of design aesthetics in usability testing: effects on user performance and perceived usability. Appl Ergon 2010;41:403–10.doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2009.09.002 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19892317
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    56. ↵
      2. Sheehan B ,
      3. Lee Y ,
      4. Rodriguez M , et al
      . A comparison of usability factors of four mobile devices for accessing healthcare information by adolescents. Appl Clin Inform 2012;3:356–66.doi:10.4338/ACI-2012-06-RA-0021 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23227134
      OpenUrlPubMed
    57. ↵
      2. Britto MT ,
      3. Rohan JM ,
      4. Dodds CM , et al
      . A randomized trial of User-Controlled text messaging to improve asthma outcomes: a pilot study. Clin Pediatr 2017;56:1336–44.doi:10.1177/0009922816684857 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28056541
      OpenUrlPubMed
    58. ↵
      2. Carmody JK ,
      3. Denson LA ,
      4. Hommel KA
      . Content and usability evaluation of medication adherence mobile applications for use in pediatrics. J Pediatr Psychol 2019;44:333–42.doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsy086 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30358863
      OpenUrlPubMed
    59. ↵
      2. Farooqui N ,
      3. Phillips G ,
      4. Barrett C , et al
      . Acceptability of an interactive asthma management mobile health application for children and adolescents. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2015;114:527–9.doi:10.1016/j.anai.2015.03.006 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26021895
      OpenUrlPubMed
    60. ↵
      2. Tran BX ,
      3. Zhang MW ,
      4. Le HT , et al
      . What drives young Vietnamese to use mobile health innovations? implications for health communication and behavioral interventions. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018;6:e194. doi:10.2196/mhealth.6490 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30251704
      OpenUrlPubMed
    61. ↵
      2. Balli F
      . Developing digital games to address airway clearance therapy in children with cystic fibrosis: participatory design process. JMIR Serious Games 2018;6:e18. doi:10.2196/games.8964 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30463835
      OpenUrlPubMed
    62. ↵
      2. Bonini M ,
      3. Usmani OS
      . Novel methods for device and adherence monitoring in asthma. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2018;24:63–9.doi:10.1097/MCP.0000000000000439 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29036020
      OpenUrlPubMed
    63. ↵
      2. O'Kearney R ,
      3. Kang K ,
      4. Christensen H , et al
      . A controlled trial of a school-based Internet program for reducing depressive symptoms in adolescent girls. Depress Anxiety 2009;26:65–72.doi:10.1002/da.20507 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18828141
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    64. ↵
      2. Goyal S ,
      3. Nunn CA ,
      4. Rotondi M , et al
      . A mobile APP for the self-management of type 1 diabetes among adolescents: a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017;5:e82. doi:10.2196/mhealth.7336 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28630037
      OpenUrlPubMed
    65. ↵
      2. Dennison L ,
      3. Morrison L ,
      4. Conway G , et al
      . Opportunities and challenges for smartphone applications in supporting health behavior change: qualitative study. J Med Internet Res 2013;15:e86. doi:10.2196/jmir.2583 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23598614
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    66. ↵
      2. Kenny R ,
      3. Dooley B ,
      4. Fitzgerald A
      . Developing mental health mobile apps: exploring adolescents' perspectives. Health Informatics J 2016;22:265–75.doi:10.1177/1460458214555041 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25385165
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    67. ↵
      2. Armoiry X ,
      3. Sturt J ,
      4. Phelps EE , et al
      . Digital clinical communication for families and caregivers of children or young people with short- or long-term conditions: rapid review. J Med Internet Res 2018;20:e5. doi:10.2196/jmir.7999 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29305339
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    68. ↵
      2. Park E ,
      3. Kwon M
      . Health-Related Internet use by children and adolescents: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2018;20:e120. doi:10.2196/jmir.7731 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29615385
      OpenUrlPubMed
    69. ↵
      2. Garrido S ,
      3. Cheers D ,
      4. Boydell K , et al
      . Young people's response to six smartphone Apps for anxiety and depression: focus group study. JMIR Ment Health 2019;6:e14385. doi:10.2196/14385 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31579023
      OpenUrlPubMed
    70. ↵
      2. Shah J ,
      3. Das P ,
      4. Muthiah N , et al
      . New age technology and social media: adolescent psychosocial implications and the need for protective measures. Curr Opin Pediatr 2019;31:148–56.doi:10.1097/MOP.0000000000000714 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30507648
      OpenUrlPubMed
    71. ↵
      2. Barman-Adhikari A ,
      3. Rice E
      . Sexual health information seeking online among Runaway and homeless youth. J Soc Social Work Res 2011;2:89–103.doi:10.5243/jsswr.2011.5 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22247795
      OpenUrlPubMed
    72. ↵
      2. Selkie EM ,
      3. Benson M ,
      4. Moreno M
      . Adolescents' views regarding uses of social networking websites and text messaging for adolescent sexual health education. Am J Health Educ 2011;42:205–12.doi:10.1080/19325037.2011.10599189 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22229150
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    73. ↵
      2. Huckvale K ,
      3. Prieto JT ,
      4. Tilney M , et al
      . Unaddressed privacy risks in accredited health and wellness apps: a cross-sectional systematic assessment. BMC Med 2015;13:214. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0444-y pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26404673
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    74. ↵
      2. Balbir SB ,
      3. Ravinder B ,
      4. Jo-Pei T
      . Smart phone activity: risk-taking behaviours and perceptions on data security among young people in England. International Journal of Social and Organizational Dynamics in IT 2013;3:43–58.
      OpenUrl
    75. ↵
      2. Nikolaou CK ,
      3. Tay Z ,
      4. Leu J , et al
      . Young people's attitudes and motivations toward social media and mobile Apps for weight control: mixed methods study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019;7:e11205. doi:10.2196/11205 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31603431
      OpenUrlPubMed
    76. ↵
      2. Hollis C ,
      3. Falconer CJ ,
      4. Martin JL , et al
      . Annual Research Review: Digital health interventions for children and young people with mental health problems - a systematic and meta-review. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2017;58:474–503.doi:10.1111/jcpp.12663 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27943285
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    77. ↵
      2. Fergie G ,
      3. Hunt K ,
      4. Hilton S
      . What young people want from health-related online resources: a focus group study. J Youth Stud 2013;16:579–96.doi:10.1080/13676261.2012.744811 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24748849
      OpenUrlPubMed
      2. Roddis JK ,
      3. Holloway I ,
      4. Bond C , et al
      . Living with a long-term condition: understanding well-being for individuals with thrombophilia or asthma. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being 2016;11:31530. doi:10.3402/qhw.v11.31530 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27534945
      OpenUrlPubMed

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @sarah_blower, @SwallowVeronica, @CamilaMaturanaP, @SimonRStones, @drbobphillips, @zmarshman, @DrIanKellar, @natwm10, @JMartinKerry

    • Contributors JM-K, VS, ZM, PK, SB, BP, PD, NM, PC, SS and SH developed the grant application for this piece of work. JM-K developed the scoping review protocol with input from BP, VS and SB. JM-K, SB and VS undertook title and abstract screening; CM, SB and JM-K undertook full-text screening; CM, AD and JM-K undertook data extraction with input from SB. JM-K and SS undertook the stakeholder engagement activities. All coauthors provided critical input into the data extracted. SB and JM-K drafted the manuscript, and all coauthors critically reviewed this and provided input and approved the final manuscript.

    • Funding This scoping review was funded by the University of York’s University Research Priming Fund and is supported by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Children and Young People MedTech Co-operative (NIHR CYP MedTech). SB’s time was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Yorkshire and Humber ARC.

    • Disclaimer The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. No additional data available.