ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2019
Assessing the Quality of Mobile Phone Apps for Weight Management: User-Centered Study With Employees From a Lebanese University.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standards, Processes, and Tools Used to Evaluate the Quality of Health Information Systems: Systematic Literature Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- A Review of Mortality Risk Prediction Models in Smartphone Applications.Journal of medical systems · 2021Pooled it
- Association Between User Engagement of a Mobile Health App for Gout and Improvements in Self-Care Behaviors: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Trial
- Mobile App Rating Scale for Health Care Professionals to Assess the Quality of mHealth Apps: Questionnaire Development and Psychometric Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Determinants of mobile health application utilization in Lebanon: a cross-sectional study of perceptions, barriers, and engagement.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Calorie-Counting Apps for Monitoring and Managing Calorie Intake in Adults Living With Weight-Related Chronic Diseases: Decade-Long Scoping Review (2013-2024).JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Effects of a wearable-based intervention in overweight and obese adolescents: A randomized controlled trial considering gender, baseline activity, and intervention exposure.Wearable technologies · 2026Article
- The Effectiveness of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Gamified Intervention for Improving Maternal Health Outcomes Among Refugees and Underserved Women in Lebanon: Community Interventional Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Mobile Intermittent Fasting Applications in Chinese App Stores: Quality Evaluations and Content Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- Users' Needs for Mental Health Apps: Quality Evaluation Using the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- Persian adaptation and validation of the user version of The Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS).PloS one · 2025Article
- Nutrition-Related Mobile Apps in the Spanish App Stores: Quality and Content Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Article
- Nutrition Management Miniprograms in WeChat: Evaluation of Functionality and Quality.JMIR human factors · 2024Observational
- Assessment of Step Tracker Mobile Applications for the Promotion of Physical Activity by Adolescents Based on Their Weight Status.International journal of telemedicine and applications · 2024Article
- Utilization of patient portals: a cross-sectional study investigating associations with mobile app quality.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Menstrual Tracking Mobile App Review by Consumers and Health Care Providers: Quality Evaluations Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Review
- Mobile nutrition and health management platform for perioperative recovery: an interdisciplinary research achievement using WeChat Applet.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Digital health in fragile states in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region: A scoping review of the literature.PloS one · 2023Article
- Healthcare professionals' and patients' assessments of listed mobile health apps in China: a qualitative study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- The Persian Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS-Fa): Translation and Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvaluating the quality of mobile health apps for weight loss and weight management is important to understand whether these can be used for obesity prevention and treatment. Recent reviews call for more research on multidimensional aspects of app quality, especially involving end users, as there are already many expert reviews on this domain. However, no quantitative study has investigated how laypersons see popular apps for weight management and perceive different dimensions of app quality.
objectiveThis study aimed to explore how laypersons evaluate the quality of 6 free weight management apps (My Diet Coach, SparkPeople, Lark, MyFitnessPal, MyPlate, and My Diet Diary), which achieved the highest quality ratings in a related and recent expert review.
methodsA user-centered study was conducted with 36 employees of a Lebanese university. Participants enrolled in the study on a rolling basis between October 2016 and March 2017. Participants were randomly assigned an app to use for 2 weeks. App quality was evaluated at the end of the trial period using the Mobile App Rating Scale user version (uMARS). uMARS assesses the dimensions of engagement, functionality, aesthetics, information, and subjective quality on 5-point scales. Internal consistency and interrater agreement were examined. The associations between uMARS scores and users' demographic characteristics were also explored using nonparametric tests. Analyses were completed in November 2017.
resultsOverall, the 6 apps were of moderately good quality (median uMARS score 3.6, interquartile range [IQR] 0.3). The highest total uMARS scores were achieved by Lark (mean 4.0 [SD 0.5]) and MyPlate (mean 3.8 [SD 0.4]), which also achieved the highest subjective quality scores (Lark: mean 3.3 [SD 1.4]; MyPlate: mean 3.3 [SD 0.8]). Functionality was the domain with the highest rating (median 3.9, IQR 0.3), followed by aesthetics (median 3.7, IQR 0.5), information (median 3.7, IQR 0.1), and engagement (median 3.3, IQR 0.2). Subjective quality was judged low (median 2.5, IQR 0.9). Overall, subjective quality was strongly and positively related (P<.001) with total uMARS score (ρ=.75), engagement (ρ=.68), information, and aesthetics (ρ=.60) but not functionality (ρ=.40; P=.02). Higher engagement scores were reported among healthy (P=.003) and obese individuals (P=.03), who also showed higher total uMARS (P=.04) and subjective quality (P=.05) scores.
conclusionsAlthough the apps were considered highly functional, they were relatively weak in engagement and subjective quality scores, indicating a low propensity of using the apps in the future. As engagement was the subdomain most strongly associated with subjective quality, app developers and researchers should focus on creating engaging apps, holding constant the functionality, aesthetics, and information quality. The tested apps (in particular Lark and MyPlate) were perceived as more engaging and of higher quality among healthy, obese individuals, making them a promising mode of delivery for self-directed interventions promoting weight control among the sampled population or in similar and comparable settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.