Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29563080›Full record

ReviewJMIR mHealth and uHealth2018

Quality of Publicly Available Physical Activity Apps: Review and Content Analysis.

Paulina Bondaronek, Ghadah Alkhaldi, April Slee, Fiona L Hamilton, Elizabeth Murray

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

79 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Sticky apps, not sticky hands: A systematic review and content synthesis of hand hygiene mobile apps.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Using photovoice to explore young women's experiences of behaviour change techniques in physical activity mobile apps.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2023
    Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Paulina Bondaronek *eHealth Unit, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0096-1234
Ghadah AlkhaldiCommunity Health Sciences Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9041-4546
April SleeResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2469-3916
Fiona L HamiltoneHealth Unit, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3126-5074
Elizabeth MurrayeHealth Unit, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8932-3695

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWithin the new digital health landscape, the rise of health apps creates novel prospects for health promotion. The market is saturated with apps that aim to increase physical activity (PA). Despite the wide distribution and popularity of PA apps, there are limited data on their effectiveness, user experience, and safety of personal data.

objectiveThe purpose of this review and content analysis was to evaluate the quality of the most popular PA apps on the market using health care quality indicators.

methodsThe top-ranked 400 free and paid apps from iTunes and Google Play stores were screened. Apps were included if the primary behavior targeted was PA, targeted users were adults, and the apps had stand-alone functionality. The apps were downloaded on mobile phones and assessed by 2 reviewers against the following quality assessment criteria: (1) users' data privacy and security, (2) presence of behavior change techniques (BCTs) and quality of the development and evaluation processes, and (3) user ratings and usability.

resultsOut of 400 apps, 156 met the inclusion criteria, of which 65 apps were randomly selected to be downloaded and assessed. Almost 30% apps (19/65) did not have privacy policy. Every app contained at least one BCT, with an average number of 7 and a maximum of 13 BCTs. All but one app had commercial affiliation, 12 consulted an expert, and none reported involving users in the app development. Only 12 of 65 apps had a peer-reviewed study connected to the app. User ratings were high, with only a quarter of the ratings falling below 4 stars. The median usability score was excellent-86.3 out of 100.

conclusionsDespite the popularity of PA apps available on the commercial market, there were substantial shortcomings in the areas of data safety and likelihood of effectiveness of the apps assessed. The limited quality of the apps may represent a missed opportunity for PA promotion.

Indexed as

eHealth reviewexercisehealth behaviorhealth promotionmHealthmobile applications

Identifiers

PMID29563080
PMCPMC5885062

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.