Abstract Background There is growing recognition of the role of health apps in addressing health care system challenges, yet app quality and evidence vary widely, and consumers have little decision support at the point of download. Objective This study aimed to explore which sources of recommendations European residents use and trust when choosing health apps and whether residents support government review and rating of health apps. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional online survey (December 7, 2022, to February 16, 2023) in 26 languages targeting residents of the European Economic Area, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine. The survey contained 11 questions covering demographics, types of apps used, sources of advice used and trusted, and views on government review and rating. We included only fully completed responses (N=1228). Descriptive statistics are presented as counts and percentages. For subgroup analyses, we dichotomized trust responses (“I trust” vs other responses) and tested associations with gender (Fisher exact test), age group, and education level (chi-square test); an adjusted significance threshold was applied ( P .0038). Some differences by age and education were observed for select sources (eg, government or health authorities: χ 2 1 =8.546; P =.003; family and friends: χ 2 =19.133; P <.001). Overall, 1060 (86.3%) of 1228 respondents supported government review and rating of health apps (either directly or by commissioning another organization). Conclusions In this large multilingual European survey, most respondents reported experience with health apps and placed greatest trust in health professionals, pharmacists, and government or health authorities, yet professional recommendations were used less often than informal sources. There is clear public support for government-led review and rating schemes to guide consumer choice. Efforts to make trustworthy, easy-to-find information available at the point of download and to support health care professionals in recommending high-quality apps could help bridge the gap between trusted and used sources.
Shokralla et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: