Digital Health Technologies in Pharmacy – Regulatory Challenges of Mobile Health Apps

Abstract

The integration of digital health applications, particularly mobile health (mHealth) technologies, has profoundly transformed pharmacy practice by enhancing medication management, patient adherence, pharmacovigilance, and clinical tele pharmacy services. mHealth apps facilitate remote drug dispensing consultations, enable artificial intelligence (AI)-driven drug recommendations, support personalized disease management, and streamline adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of tele pharmacy and AI-based prescription processing, underscoring the potential of these technologies to improve healthcare delivery. Despite these advancements, significant challenges persist, including data protection, AI ethics, software validation, and regulatory compliance. A critical regulatory dilemma exists regarding the classification of mHealth applications within pharmacy, as some fall under the U.S. FDA’s Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) framework requiring stringent approval, while others occupy a gray area between medical devices and wellness applications. The case of the Babylon Health AI chatbot, which faced criticism for providing inaccurate medical advice, exemplifies the risks of unregulated AI-driven pharmacy services. This review highlights the transformative benefits of digital health applications in pharmacy alongside the pressing need for clear regulatory frameworks to ensure patient safety and efficacy.

Keywords

Digital health apps, mHealth, Telepharmacy, Medical Devices, Digital Therapeutics

Introduction

The use of digital health applications has also significantly changed medication, also patient adherence, pharmacovigilance and certain aspects of clinical telepharmacy practice. Mobile health (mHealth) apps have been shown valuable for enabling remote drug dispensing consultations, artificial intelligence (AI) driven drug recommendations, personalized disease management, and recording of adverse drug reactions (ADR). The coronavirus disease outbreak COVID-19 led to the adoption of mHealth applications for pharmacy practice utilization resulting in a rise in the implementation of both telepharmacy and artificial intelligence (AI) based prescription processing (World Health Organisation [WHO] 2021). However, in conjunction with all of the above advances, data protection, AI ethics, software validation, and compliance remain central concerns (U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA], 2023).^1,2,3,4 A major challenge is the regulatory designation of MHealth applications in the context of pharmacy. According to the U.S. Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) SaMD framework (International Medical Device Regulators Forum, IMDRF) [FDA, 2, some mobile apps are considered to be medical devices that need to be regulated by FDA as medical devices that need to be approved. However, a large number of pharmacy applications are embedded in a regulatory niche, where it is unclear whether they are to be treated as medical devices, or simply wellness applications. It is, for example, the Babylon Health AI chatbot, advertised as a digital healthcare companion, faced criticism when incorrectly provided medical advice, highlighting the possible risks of unrestricted AI-based pharmacy services (Topol, 2022).^5,6 Data privacy and cybersecurity is another significant issue. Many pharmacy applications store and process sensitive patient information, including electronic prescription management, drug interaction data, and insurance information. Data protection law breaches, for example, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of the United States, represent very serious legal issues for mHealth service providers (European Medicines Agency [EMA] 2023). A classic illustration is a health application, Flo Health app, about which the disclosure to "third party advertisers" of user information was penalized with related fines and action (Federal Trade Commission [FTC], 2021). This event clearly identifies the imperative for improved trade rules and trade laws for pharmacy-based application mHealth product offerings.^7,8,9 Telepharmacy, a growing service category under digital pharmacy services, comprises remotely verified prescriptions, virtual pharmacist counseling, and monitoring of medication adherence (International Pharmaceutical Federation [FIP], 2023). Despite the existence of companies, like Amazon's PillPack, India's 1mg, and Europe's Apotheek, etc. The use of telepharmacy systems has already been successfully realized in the Netherlands, although regulatory challenges, namely regarding out-of-territory prescription validity, liability for pharmacists and anti-cyber-drugation, see for instance Saraswat et al. , 2022). Incompatibility in telepharmacy legal standards at the global level restricts the development of digital pharmacy services above a jurisdictional scale.¹⁰

This article discusses the regulatory problems of mobile health applications in pharmacy, specifically focusing on AI-driven application, data security, and privacy, telepharmacy legal issues and pharmacovigillance. Using a review of real-life examples of case studies, the existing legal and regulatory landscape, and future industry trends for pharmaceutical practice, this work aims to identify gaps in the regulatory landscape and to suggest recommendations towards the responsible, ethical and effective application of digital health technologies in pharmacy pract conclusion.

Mobile health apps in pharmacy have transformed drug safety monitoring, patient engagement and medication adherence, remote healthcare and AI managed prescription management. But the regulatory landscape is fragmented and inconsistent, leading to compliance challenges, cybersecurity risks and AI managed pharmacy service ethical concerns (FDA, 2023). Even with existing frameworks like FDA’s SaMD guidelines, GDPR for data protection and WHO pharmacovigilance guidelines, many pharmacy apps lack uniform approval process which raises questions on safety, efficacy and long-term impact on patient care (EMA, 2023).

Data privacy and cybersecurity in mobile pharmacy apps is one of the biggest concerns. As seen in the Flo Health data breach, non compliance with HIPAA, GDPR or other data privacy regulations can lead to serious legal implications and patient trust loss (FTC, 2021). And with the increasing use of AI and ML in pharmacy apps, new regulatory and ethical issues arise, especially on algorithmic bias, transparency and explainability. The Babylon Health AI incident where AI made medical suggestions were deemed unreliable highlights the need for tight regulatory control and clinical verification of AI based pharmacy software (Topol, 2022).

While telepharmacy holds promise to expand healthcare access especially in remote and underserved areas, its legal complexities are a barrier to widespread adoption. Issues like pharmacist licensure, prescription authentication and cross border controls still present regulatory hurdles for digital pharmacies (FIP, 2023). A global organized telepharmacy system with advanced fraud detection software can mitigate the risks associated with online drug sales and counterfeit drugs.^11,12

To address these challenges, regulators, healthcare institutions and technology vendors must work together to produce:

1. Harmonized global regulatory guidelines for mobile health apps related to pharmacy to ensure compliance across multiple countries.

2. Robust cybersecurity to protect patient health data from breaches and unauthorized access.

3. Transparent AI validation process to minimize algorithmic bias and maximize AI based medication management.

4. Comprehensive telepharmacy regulations for safe and legal online prescription processing and prevention of fraud and abuse.

By addressing these regulatory gaps, digital pharmacy can further improve healthcare delivery, patient safety and innovation in pharmaceutical care while upholding global healthcare standards.

1. AI-Driven Pharmacy Apps: Regulatory and Ethical Considerations

Advantages:

Improves medication management and individualized treatment.

Minimizes prescription mistakes with AI-assisted recommendations.

Enhances productivity in drug discovery and patient services.

Disadvantages:

AI decision-making is often opaque (black-box issue).

Possible biases in AI systems that impact patient care.

Ambiguous regulatory frameworks for AI in the healthcare sector.^13,14

2. Ensuring Patient Data Privacy and Security in Digital Pharmacy Apps

Advantages:

Safeguards patient health data from cyber threats.

Assists apps in adhering to HIPAA, GDPR, and various regulations.

Blockchain technology can bolster security and avert data breaches.

Disadvantages:

Significant expenses involved in adopting advanced security protocols.

Complicated compliance demands across different nations.

Possibility of data leaks and hacking events, notwithstanding regulations.

3. Digital Therapeutics (DTx) and Software as a Medical Device (SaMD): Regulatory Gaps

Advantages:

Offers non-pharmacological treatment alternatives for chronic illnesses.

Facilitates immediate patient monitoring and intervention

May decrease healthcare expenses by avoiding hospitalizations.

Disadvantages:

Absence of straightforward regulatory routes for digital therapeutics.

Requirement for comprehensive clinical validation and testing.

Reimbursement obstacles from insurance providers.^15,16

4. Legal and Ethical Challenges in Telepharmacy Mobile Applications

Advantages:

Broadens healthcare availability to remote locations.

Lowers patient travel and waiting times for consultations.

Allows ongoing tracking of patient adherence.

Disadvantages:

Licensing and jurisdiction complications for cross-border prescriptions.

Danger of fraudulent online pharmacies and illicit drug sales.

Limited personal engagement between pharmacists and patients.

5. Pharmacovigilance and Mobile Health Apps: Enhancing Drug Safety Monitoring

Advantages:

Facilitates real-time monitoring of adverse drug reactions (ADRs).

AI can identify possible drug interactions before prescriptions are written.

Enhances global pharmacovigilance frameworks.

Disadvantages:

Issues with data reliability if patients fail to accurately report ADRs.

Regulatory hurdles in incorporating AI-driven safety monitoring.

Concerns regarding privacy with real-time health monitoring.^17,18

6. Accessibility and Usability Regulations for Pharmacy Mobile Apps

Advantages:

Guarantees that pharmacy apps are easy to navigate for all ages.

Boosts medication adherence among elderly and disabled individuals.

Improves patient experience with user-friendly UI/UX designs.

Disadvantages:

High development expenses to fulfill accessibility requirements.

Challenges in standardizing usability protocols across platforms.

Potential to exclude non-tech-savvy patients from digital healthcare.^19,20

Classification Of Mobile Health Apps:

Mobile health (mHealth) applications differ significantly from each other in their purposes, functionalities and risk profiles.  Because of this, regulatory bodies have created classification systems that separate wellness products from the software that is a medical device. These categories are important for determining the regulations an application must meet before going on the market.

1. According to Utility, Risk Regulators like U.S. Mobile Health apps classified by FDA (Food and Drug Administration).

Further, they have classified mobile health apps into three main categories.

1.Wellness, and lifestyle: These apps promote and protect. Above all, they don’t treat obesity, depression, or anxiety. Further, also don’t diagnose. Mostly, they help in maintaining weight loss, reducing risk of substance abuse, and stopping smoking. Step counters, sleep trackers, fitness logs are some examples. Usually, they are not heavily regulated.

2.Health Management Apps: These help in the management of chronic diseases or adherence to medication but do not make diagnostic or therapeutic claims. Depending on functionality, some may fall under regulatory oversight.

3.Medical Device Apps: Apps that perform diagnosis, suggest treatment, or monitor physiological parameters (e.g., ECG, blood glucose monitoring) are classified as medical devices and require regulatory approval. [FDA, 2019; WHO, 2021].

4. WHO’s Classification Frame work The World Health Organization (WHO), in its 2021 classification of digital health interventions, proposed a framework to categorize digital tools, including mHealth apps, based on their intended user (clients, health workers, or health system managers) and functional scope (data collection, client communication, decision support, etc.) [WHO, 2021].

5. EU and Indian Context: The European Union has Medical Device Regulation (EU MDR 2017/745) under which health apps may be classed as medical devices, if their manufacturer aims for them to be used for a medical purpose, such as diagnosis, prevention or monitoring disease.  India does not have a formal classification scheme relating to health apps at present but the National Digital Health Blueprint and NDHM framework indicate that a similar scheme may be adopted in future. The apps may be evaluated based on the extent of data collected, medical functionality, and level of risk posed to patients [MeitY, 2022].

6. Importance of Classification: It will ensure that everybody knows how much scrutiny an app requires. Further, it will take developers through the required regulatory pathways. Finally, it will keep healthcare professionals updated on reliability. This allows pharmacists to not recommend any application until it is validated as a suitable tool for medication adherence, dose checking, or drug interaction checking. FDA. (2019). Policy on the Software Functions of Devices and Mobile Medical Apps. 2. WHO. (2021). Classification of Digital Health Interventions v2.0.3 (page) European Commission. (2017). Medical Device Regulation (EU) 2017/745.4. MeitY. (2022). Draft India Digital Health Standards.5. NDHM. (2021). National Digital Health Blueprint. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.^21,22,23,24

Regulatory Landscape:

With the rapid growth of mHealth applications, pharmacy and healthcare have been impacted tremendously with innovative tools for medication management, chronic disease monitoring and patient education. Nonetheless, this evolution brings about complex regulatory difficulties since a number of mHealth apps functions in a space that is neither health but a medical device.

1.Overview of Global Regulations:

Due to the existence of country-specific regulators, regulations are not unified and vary widely across regions. In US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) categorizes certain mHealth apps as Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) when they exhibit functions analogous to medical devices, such as diagnosis or treatment of a condition.  The purpose of the FDA’s Digital Health Software Precertification Program is to facilitate easier regulation for reliable developers. This will help promote innovation while ensuring safety (FDA, 2023).

Under the Medical Device Regulation, (EU 2017/745), mHealth apps in the European Union are regulated. To commercialize their apps, developers must classify them based on risk and get a CE marking. The European Union Medical Device Regulation (EU MDR) lays emphasis on clinical evaluation and post-market surveillance presenting challenges for fast-evolving app technologies (European Commission, 2021).

In India, the regulation of mHealth apps is still formative. The CDSCO has no specific guidelines for mHealth apps (although some apps may fall under the Medical Devices Rules 2017). The Digital Information Security in Healthcare Act (DISHA) and Health Data Management Policy under the National Digital Health Mission (NDHM) also focus on data security and interoperability (MoHFW 2022).^25,26

2. Regulation faces several challenges:

* Definitional ambiguity : it  isn’t always easy to distinguish between a wellness app and a medical-grade app. Therefore, enforcement is inconsistent.

* Data privacy and security: mHealth apps process sensitive health information. Most mHealth apps are not compliant with stringent privacy standards. An example is the US HIPAA or EU GDPR.

* Rapid Technology advancement: Regulation isn’t always able to keep up with technical developments. These include AI-based diagnostics, integration of wearables, real-time analytics, among others.

 * Cross-border compliance:

Developers targeting international markets find it challenging to comply with various regulatory regimes. 

3. Toward harmonized regulation: Efforts are underway globally to harmonize standards. The International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF) provides guidance regarding definitions and risk classifications for SaMD, which are references for the US, the EU, and others. Innovation will benefit if there is better collaboration and more consistency of language.^27,28

Ethical & Legal Consideration:

With mobile health apps now a part of the pharmaceutical profession, the ethical and legal implications merit closer scrutiny. The mentioned issues are not limited to technical compliance but also relate to patient rights and fair treatment in health care.

1. Informed consent and patient autonomy:

Mobile health apps typically gather personal health data from users, including their behavior, biometrics, and medication use history. However, many apps fail to offer clear consent processes. By accepting the offered terms and conditions, the users do not know about the usages of their data. Thus, it can compromise with the informed consent of the user. Medical ethics depend on informed consent (Beauchamp & Childress , 2019)

2. Data privacy and security:

Laws governing digital health data vary from one country to another. In areas such as the EU, there are regulations based on that data like General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The GDPR ensures that a person’s express consent in addition to their right to erasure and portability of data. HIPAA applies only when data is handled by covered entities in the U.S. Because of this regulatory blind spot many consumer-grade apps are going unused.  India is developing a data protection framework.  The enforcement of the act is still a work in progress, leading to worries about the safety of the health data being stored or processed mHealth apps.^29,30

3. Algorithmic Transparency and Bias:

Numerous mobile health applications use AI algorithms for symptom checking or treatment recommendations. If such algorithms are "black boxes," users and even health care providers cannot evaluate their accuracy or fairness. Lack of transparency is a legal and ethical concern regarding accountability, particularly when inaccurate recommendations do harm. Additionally, AI algorithms learned from unrepresentative databases have the potential to perpetuate healthcare inequities. To illustrate, medical diagnostic devices may perform suboptimally for minorities if not sufficiently tested.

4. Liability and Professional Oversight:

When a health app delivers faulty advice, liability is hard to determine. Is it the developer's fault? The recommending pharmacist? Or the errant patient? Laws today in most nations are not clear on attributing liability, thereby demotivating healthcare professionals from prescribing digital tools in spite of their value.^31,32

CONCLUSION

Mobile health apps in pharmacy have transformed drug safety monitoring, patient engagement and medication adherence, remote healthcare and AI managed prescription management. But the regulatory landscape is fragmented and inconsistent, leading to compliance challenges, cybersecurity risks and AI managed pharmacy service ethical concerns (FDA, 2023). Even with existing frameworks like FDA’s SaMD guidelines, GDPR for data protection and WHO pharmacovigilance guidelines, many pharmacy apps lack uniform approval process which raises questions on safety, efficacy and long-term impact on patient care (EMA, 2023).^33,34 Data privacy and cybersecurity in mobile pharmacy apps is one of the biggest concerns. As seen in the Flo Health data breach, non-compliance with HIPAA, GDPR or other data privacy regulations can lead to serious legal implications and patient trust loss (FTC, 2021). And with the increasing use of AI and ML in pharmacy apps, new regulatory and ethical issues arise, especially on algorithmic bias, transparency and explainability. The Babylon Health AI incident where AI made medical suggestions were deemed unreliable highlights the need for tight regulatory control and clinical verification of AI based pharmacy software (Topol, 2022). While telepharmacy holds promise to expand healthcare access especially in remote and underserved areas, its legal complexities are a barrier to widespread adoption. Issues like pharmacist licensure, prescription authentication and cross border controls still present regulatory hurdles for digital pharmacies (FIP, 2023). A global organized telepharmacy system with advanced fraud detection software can mitigate the risks associated with online drug sales and counterfeit drugs.^35,36,37

To address these challenges, regulators, healthcare institutions and technology vendors must work together to produce:

1. Harmonized global regulatory guidelines for mobile health apps related to pharmacy to ensure compliance across multiple countries.

2. Robust cybersecurity to protect patient health data from breaches and unauthorized access.

3. Transparent AI validation process to minimize algorithmic bias and maximize AI based medication management.

4. Comprehensive tele pharmacy regulations for safe and legal online prescription processing and prevention of fraud and abuse.

By addressing these regulatory gaps, digital pharmacy can further improve healthcare delivery, patient safety and innovation in pharmaceutical care while upholding global healthcare standards. ^37,38,39

REFERENCES

1. Alruthia, Y., Alhusan, H., Almalag, H., Balkhi, B., Alshammari, H., & Almomen, M. (2022). Telepharmacy during COVID-19: A scoping review. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 30(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2021.09.006
2. Ming, L. C., Lee, S. W. H., Tai, M. L. S., Tan, C. S., & Cheong, Y. M. (2022). Artificial intelligence in adverse drug reactions and pharmacovigilance: A scoping review. Drug Safety, 45(3), 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-021-01141-5
3. Kritikos, M., et al. (2024). Ethical and regulatory aspects of AI in healthcare: A review of current frameworks and future directions. Heliyon, 10(3), e23284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e23284
4. Morley, J., Machado, C. C. V., Burr, C., Cowls, J., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2020). The ethics of AI in health care: A mapping review. Social Science & Medicine, 260, 113172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113172
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2023). Device software functions including mobile medical applications. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/digital-health-center-excellence/device-software-functions-including-mobile-medical-applications
6. Topol, E. (2022). Deep Medicine: How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Healthcare Human Again. Basic Books.
7. Federal Trade Commission. (2021, June 22). FTC finalizes order with Flo Health, fertility-tracking app that shared sensitive health data with Facebook, Google, and others. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2021/06/ftc-finalizes-order-flo-health-fertility-tracking-app-shared-sensitive-health-data-facebook-google
8. Vincent, J. (2025, August 7). Jury finds Meta illegally collected data from women’s health app Flo. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/news/753469/meta-flo-period-tracker-lawsuit-verdict
9. Aljazzaf, S., Aljazzaf, B., & Al-Haj, S. (2024). Privacy issues in mobile health applications: A comprehensive review and analysis of femtech apps. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.02749    
10. Azhar, M. A., & Mazhar, M. (2021). Telepharmacy: A review of practice and regulatory frameworks. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 17(2), 324–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.04.014
11. International Pharmaceutical Federation. (2023). Digital health in pharmacy practice: A call to action. Pharmacy Practice, 21(1), 4997. https://www.fip.org/files/fip/Digital-Health-in-Pharmacy-Practice.pdf
12. Saraswat, A., Ranganathan, S., & Gupta, P. (2022). Telepharmacy in global perspective: Legal and regulatory challenges. Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, 15(1), 45. https://joppp.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40545-022-00430-w
13. Jiang, F., Jiang, Y., Zhi, H., Dong, Y., Li, H., Ma, S., ... & Wang, Y. (2017). Artificial intelligence in healthcare: past, present and future. Stroke and Vascular Neurology, 2(4), 230-243. https://doi.org/10.1136/svn-2017-000101
14. Topol, E. J. (2019). High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nature Medicine, 25(1), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7
15. Albrecht, U. V. (2013). Transparency of health-apps for trust and decision making. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(12), e277. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2917
16. Rumbold, J. M. M., & Pierscionek, B. K. (2017). The effect of the General Data Protection Regulation on medical research. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(2), e47. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7108
17. Gerke, S., Stern, A. D., & Minssen, T. (2020). Germany’s Digital Health Reforms in the COVID-19 Era: Lessons for Other Countries. npj Digital Medicine, 3(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-020-0288-5
18. Alkhateeb, F. M., & Qudah, B. (2021). Legal and ethical considerations in telepharmacy services. Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, 14(1), 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40545-021-00333-9
19. Mehta, U., & Joshi, K. (2019). Role of pharmacovigilance in the safety of mobile health applications. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 127, 13-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.03.009
20. Kuerbis, A., Mulliken, A., Muench, F., Moore, A. A., & Gardner, D. (2017). Older adults and mobile technology: factors that enhance and inhibit utilization in the context of behavioral health. Mental Health and Addiction Research, 2(1), 11-23. https://doi.org/10.1037/pha0000107
21. Petersen, C., & Yancy, W. S. Jr. (2019). FDA regulation of mobile medical apps: A policy analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(8), e13493. https://doi.org/10.2196/13493
22. World Health Organization. (2021). Classification of digital health interventions v2.0: A shared language to describe the uses of digital technology for health. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240020907
23. Sundararaman, T., & Grover, A. (2021). Digital health and mHealth policy developments in India. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 10(3), 1093–1097. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1682_20
24. Lewis, T. L., Synowiec, C., Lagomarsino, G., & Schweitzer, J. (2012). E-health in low- and middle-income countries: Findings from the Center for Health Market Innovations. Health Affairs, 31(2), 231-237. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0985
25. Gerke, S., Minssen, T., & Cohen, G. (2020). Ethical and legal challenges of artificial intelligence-driven healthcare. Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare, 295–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818438-7.00014-9(Covers regulatory and ethical challenges, including AI in mHealth.)
26. Grundy, Q., Held, F., Bero, L., & Bero, L. (2019). Challenges of regulating digital health technologies. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 6(1), 182–202. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsz002(Discusses global regulatory challenges of digital health and mHealth apps.)
27. Huckvale, K., Prieto, J. T., Tilney, M., Benghozi, P. J., & Car, J. (2015). Unaddressed privacy risks in accredited health and wellness apps: A cross-sectional systematic assessment. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 214. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0451-0 (Assesses privacy compliance in health apps, relevant to regulatory and ethical issues.)
28. Nebeker, C., Torous, J., & Bartlett Ellis, R. (2019). Building the case for actionable ethics in digital health research supported by artificial intelligence. BMC Medicine, 17(1), 137. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1377-3 (Discusses ethical considerations, including informed consent and privacy in mHealth.)
29. Morley, J., Machado, C. C. V., Burr, C., Cowls, J., Joshi, I., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2020). The ethics of AI in health care: A mapping review. Social Science & Medicine, 260, 113172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113172(Explores ethical concerns related to AI algorithms in healthcare apps.)
30. Price, W. N., & Cohen, I. G. (2019). Privacy in the age of medical big data. Nature Medicine, 25(1), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0272-7(Focuses on legal and privacy issues with medical data in digital health tools.)
31. Topol, E. J. (2019). High-performance medicine: The convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nature Medicine, 25(1), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7(Discusses regulatory and technological convergence in digital health including mHealth.)
32. Bouri, N., Ravi, S., Li, J., & Reisman, J. (2019). Regulation of mobile health applications. Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports, 13(3), 6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12170-019-0598-8(Examines mobile health app regulation across regions.)
33. Gerke, S., Minssen, T., & Cohen, G. (2020). Ethical and legal challenges of artificial intelligence-driven healthcare. Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare, 295–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818438-7.00014-9(Discusses regulatory and ethical issues with AI in healthcare apps.)
34. Grundy, Q., Held, F., Bero, L., & Bero, L. (2019). Challenges of regulating digital health technologies. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 6(1), 182–202. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsz002
35. Huckvale, K., Prieto, J. T., Tilney, M., Benghozi, P. J., & Car, J. (2015). Unaddressed privacy risks in accredited health and wellness apps: A cross-sectional systematic assessment. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 214. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0451-0
36. Price, W. N., & Cohen, I. G. (2019). Privacy in the age of medical big data. Nature Medicine, 25(1), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0272-7
37. Morley, J., Machado, C. C. V., Burr, C., Cowls, J., Joshi, I., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2020). The ethics of AI in health care: A mapping review. Social Science & Medicine, 260, 113172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113172
38. Topol, E. J. (2019). High-performance medicine: The convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nature Medicine, 25(1), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7
39. Gagnon, M. P., Duplantie, J., Fortin, J. P., & Landry, R. (2006). Implementing telehealth to support medical practice in rural/remote regions: What are the conditions for success? Implementation Science, 1, 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-1-18.