Evidence-Based Medicine

Research Appraisals

Evidence-based critical appraisals of the latest medical research, systematically evaluated using Oxford CEBM methodology.

Showing 1 appraisal

Randomised Controlled TrialEvidence: Weak
50CEBM

JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Safer Sleep Guidance in Standalone UK Smartphone Apps for Parents of Newborns and Infants: Systematic mHealth App Review

BACKGROUND: Parents are increasingly using smartphone apps to help guide decision-making around aspects of caregiving, including safer sleep. However, it remains unclear whether the guidance provided aligns with best practice guidelines. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to identify smartphone apps that provide safer sleep guidance and to assess their content, technical features, functionality, and quality. A secondary aim was to make recommendations on the improvements that existing and future apps can make to provide safer sleep guidance. METHODS: In January 2026, we searched the UK Google Play Store and Apple App Store for safer sleep guidance apps for parents and caregivers of newborns and infants (babies aged ≤12 months). Information regarding content, technical features, and functional features was extracted and summarized descriptively. Each app was evaluated by 2 raters using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics functionality score. Adherence to best practice sleep guidance was assessed using bespoke criteria. Interrater reliability was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 1345 apps were identified, with 12 meeting the inclusion criteria. All were free to download, with 42% (5/12) containing in-app purchases. Only 17% (2/12) were affiliated with a professional health, medical, clinical, or government body. All 12 apps contained some information regarding safer sleep practices, although this was addressed and named differently (eg, calling it cot death, sudden infant death syndrome, or safe sleep). Of the 9 criteria relating to safer sleep best practice guidance, the apps mentioned an average of 6.75 (SD 1.71; range 3-9) criteria. Some promoted unsafe sleep practices (ie, around swaddling and cosleeping). The apps included an average of 5.4 of the 11 IMS functionality criteria (SD 2.5; range 2-9). The mean MARS score was 3.7 out of 5 (SD 0.43; range 2.92-4.13), and most (11/12, 92%) had a minimum acceptability score of 3 or above. Two had been formally trialed or tested. Although the language used was considered accessible (easy to understand), none of the apps allowed the language to be changed (beyond English), and very few (3/12, 25%) enabled users to change to night/dark mode, which would be considered essential when using these apps at night. CONCLUSIONS: Several apps about safer baby sleep exist. Few discuss safer sleep guidance comprehensively or raise awareness about sudden infant death syndrome and its links with unsafe sleep. All the reviewed apps met the minimum acceptability criteria for quality; however, not many were formally trialed or tested. More long-term research should be conducted on the effectiveness of safer sleep apps on adherence to safer sleep guidance. We recommend that apps relating to infant and baby safety in general include information on realistic safer sleep practices that are informed by best practice guidelines and take a risk minimization approach.

11 July 2026

Read appraisal →