Native Apps versus Web Apps: Which Is Best for Healthcare Applications?

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8005)


Smartphone applications (Apps) provide a new way to deliver healthcare, illustrated by the fact that healthcare Apps are estimated to make up over 30% of new Apps currently being developed; with this number seemingly set to increase as the benefits become more apparent. In this paper, using the development of an In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) treatment stress study App as the exemplar, the alternatives of Native App and Web App design and implementation are considered across several factors that include: user interface, ease of development, capabilities, performance, cost, and potential problems. Development for iOS and Android platforms and a Web App using JavaScript and HTML5 are discussed.


Web Apps Native Apps mHealth Ecological Momentary Assessment User Interface User Experience JavaScript HTML5 Android iOS 


  1. 1.
    Lane, N.D., Miluzzo, E., Lu, H., Peebles, D., Choudhury, T., Campbell, A.T.: A Survey of Mobile Phone Sensing. IEEE Communication Magazine 48(9), 140–150 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boulos, M.N.K., Wheeler, S., Tavares, C., Jones, R.: How the smartphones are changing the face of the mobile and participatory healthcare: an overview with example from eCAALYX. BioMedical Engineering Online 10(24) (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Emerging mHealth: Paths for growth (2013), (last accessed on February 28, 2013)
  4. 4.
    UC Berkeley/Nokia/NAVTEQ, Mobile Millennium (2011), (last accessed on February 28, 2013)
  5. 5.
    Kumar, S., Nilsen, W., Pavel, M., Srivastava, M.: Mobile Health: Revolutionizing Healthcare Through Transdisciplinary Research. IEEE Computer Magazine 46(1), 25–38 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bardram, J.E., Mihailidis, A., Wan, D. (eds.): Pervasive Computing in Healthcare. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group (November 2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    World Health Organization: mHealth: New horizons for health through mobile technologies: second global survey on eHealth (2011), (last accessed February 27, 2013)
  8. 8.
    Matthiesen, S.M.S., Frederiksen, Y., Ingerslev, H.J., Zachariae, R.: Stress, distress and outcome of assisted reproductive technology (ART); A meta analysis. Human Reproduction 26, 2763–2776 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smyth, J.A., Stone, A.: Ecological momentary assesement in behavioural medicine. Journal of Happiness Studies 4, 35–52 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smyth, J., Ockenfels, M., Porter, L., Kirschbaum, C., Hellhammer, D., Stone, A.: The association between daily stressors, mood and salivary cortisol secretion. Psychoneuroendocrinology 23, 353–370 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schwartz, N., Sudman, S.: Autobiographical Memory and the Validity of Retrospective Reports. Springer, New York (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brosschot, J.F., Pieper, S., Thayer, J.F.: Expanding stress theory: Prolonged activiation and perseverative cogntiion. Psychoneuroendocrinology 30, 1043–1049 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Quirin, M., Kazan, M., Kuhl, S.: When nonsense sounds happy or helpless: The implicit positive and negative affect test (IPANAT). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 3, 500–516 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Android Developer Website, (last accessed February 28, 2013)
  15. 15.
    Apple Developer Website, (last accessed February 28, 2013)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Electrical Systems & Optics Research Group, Faculty of EngineeringThe University of NottinghamNottinghamUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.School of Community Health SciencesThe University of NottinghamNottinghamUnited Kingdom
  3. 3.Division of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, School of Clinical Sciences, Queen’s Medical Centre (QMC)The University of NottinghamNottinghamUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations