"People aren't taking the time and devoting the energy to apply the research methodology," Levine said.

Levine and his team are certainly not shying away from the effort. Their study intends to start with a survey of stroke patients and health providers to find out what features they would like in an app, and take into account gender and cultural differences found in device use.

For instance, how will stroke victims use these devices if their mobility and dexterity are reduced after a stroke event? And what will they use them for? Active monitoring of vital signs is one use, but an app that finds local stroke support groups or online forums might be just as effective in the long term in preventing another stroke. These are the kinds of questions Levine wants to have answered before ideally moving on to another funded project: actually building an app that reflects the results of the current study.

Levine doesn't see a lot of sense in not approaching medical app development in this manner, and holds little regard for the currently more prevalent approach of building apps and getting them to market as fast as possible. He believes this attitude is already prevalent in the pharmaceutical industry, which has led to products that are less than optimal. "Why be the first to market if you're not the best?" Levine argues.

Additionally, Levine sees a danger in just building any apps without complete research. For some apps, the content handled by the application will require the app to be compliant with the law. An app that tracks blood pressure or blood sugars is handling patient-specific data, and therefore must be HIPAA compliant. This is not something an app developer will want to get wrong.