Many people now turn to health apps for support with anxiety, sleep problems, fitness routines, or chronic illness management. Yet the decision to use these apps often depends on whether a healthcare professional believes they are safe and reliable. A new study exploring how doctors and nurses respond to a European quality label for health apps suggests that clearer information could make a real difference to what is recommended in everyday care. The findings were published in the Journal of Health Psychology.
Researchers worked with more than one hundred healthcare professionals from across Europe to understand how they judge health apps in situations involving prevention, self monitoring, and more clinically focused tools. Participants were presented with short scenarios that described different patient needs. In some scenarios an app was accompanied by the ISO 82304 2 quality label, which grades apps according to healthy and safe performance, ease of use, secure data, and robust build.
The study found that clinicians were more willing to recommend apps when the label was included. They reported greater confidence in the overall quality, and a clearer sense of how the app performed in areas such as safety and usability. This matters because many healthcare professionals say they struggle to judge which apps are reliable. With thousands of mental health apps, fitness apps, and health monitoring apps available, it is difficult for clinicians to track standards or stay informed. The label helped give a clearer sense of trust, especially for professionals who had previously avoided recommending apps because they lacked straightforward guidance.
The findings also showed that willingness to recommend did not depend on whether the app focused on prevention, self management, or clinical care. The label increased confidence across all three areas. This is notable because earlier research suggested that clinicians were far more comfortable recommending prevention or lifestyle apps and more cautious with apps linked to diagnoses or treatment. The new results suggest that a clear quality label may help balance these differences by giving professionals consistent information across app types.
Socioeconomic background was another important part of the study. Clinicians were generally more willing to recommend apps to patients with higher socioeconomic status. They were more hesitant with patients who might have limited access to technology or lower digital confidence. However, the presence of the label did not widen this gap. The increase in willingness was similar for both groups of patients. This suggests that the label may improve overall trust without increasing inequality in access to digital health support.
Although the findings are encouraging, the authors note that the scenarios were hypothetical. The real test will come when the label is fully implemented and clinicians begin using it in daily practice. Even so, early feedback from the study shows that healthcare professionals value clear, structured information, and feel more assured when they can rely on a standardised assessment. In a healthcare system where digital tools are becoming more common for managing anxiety in teenagers, supporting people with long term conditions, or monitoring symptoms outside appointments, improved trust could play an important role in shaping patient care.
