Advertisement

Which Mobile Health Toolkit Should a Service Provider Choose? A Comparative Evaluation of Apple HealthKit, Google Fit, and Samsung Digital Health Platform

  • Babak A. Farshchian
  • Thomas Vilarinho
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10217)

Abstract

Mobile health applications are proliferating. Platform vendors have recently created programming toolkits to support developers. In many healthcare scenarios, mobile health applications are only the end-point of a larger supervised service involving many stakeholders. We want to know how these toolkits support the delivery of such services. Using a case study approach, we study three cases of such platforms and toolkits, i.e. Apple HealthKit, Google Fit and Samsung Digital Health. We collected and analyzed data from blogs, online developer forums, toolkit documentations, and from our own programming of an example health application. We use the boundary resource model to analyze our data. Our findings show that each of the toolkits imposes, through its boundary resources, the business model of its vendor on service providers. This can have important strategic implications for health service providers who want to base their services on each of the three toolkits.

Keywords

Healthcare Digital health service Health informatics Mobile health Programming toolkit Health toolkit Business model Boundary resource API 

Notes

Acknowledgement

We thank Petter Astrup, Erik G Jansen, and Nemanja Aksic for the collection of data used in our analysis. This paper is partly supported by the Norwegian Research Council project ADAPT (Grant Agreement No. 317631) and the EU Horizon 2020 project MyCyFAPP (Grant Agreement No. 643806).

References

  1. 1.
    Tran, J., Tran, R., White, J.R.: Smartphone-based glucose monitors and applications in the management of diabetes. Clin. Diabetes 30, 173–178 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Farshchian, B.A., Dahl, Y.: The role of ICT in addressing the challenges of age-related falls: a research agenda based on a systematic mapping of the literature. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 19, 649–666 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    von Hippel, E., Katz, R.: Shifting innovation to users via toolkits. Manag. Sci. 48, 821–833 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gay, V., Leijdekkers, P.: Bringing health and fitness data together for connected health care: Mobile apps as enablers of interoperability. J. Med. Internet Res. 17, e260 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gavalas, D., Economou, D.: Development platforms for mobile applications- status and trends. IEEE Softw. 28, 77–86 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anvaari, M., Jansen, S.: Evaluating architectural openness in mobile software platforms. In: 4th European Conference on Software Architecture, pp. 85–92 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghazawneh, A., Henfridsson, O.: Balancing platform control and external contribution in third-party development: the boundary resources model. Inf. Syst. J. 23, 173–192 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Astrup, P., Jansen, E.G., Aksic, N.: Empirical evaluation of commercial health toolkits. Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stiftelsen SINTEFTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations