Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31620471›Full record

ArticlemHealth2019

Parenting apps review: in search of good quality apps.

Anila Virani, Linda Duffett-Leger, Nicole Letourneau

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in mHealth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Provider perspectives on equity in use of mobile health autism screening tools.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2024
    Article
  17. Breastfeeding Apps: A Descriptive Report.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Anila ViraniFaculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Linda Duffett-LegerFaculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Nicole LetourneauFaculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParenting can be challenging, and in this digital age, first-time parents actively access mobile applications or "apps" to adjust to their new roles. Apps are now technologically-savvy parents' go-to tool for accessing information, tracking their babies' development, editing and sharing photos, and much more. While apps have the potential to make parenting easier, the abundance of low-quality apps makes the process of finding a reliable one arduous for parents. Therefore, the objective of this app review paper was to provide a list of quality parenting apps that parents can use.

methodsThe Google Play Store was searched on June 1st, 2018 for available parenting apps using 18 search terms: mum, mom, mommy, mama, mother, father, dad, daddy, papa, newborn, baby, infant, kid, child, children, family, parent, and parenting. The eligible apps (n=16) were evaluated on engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information domains using Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS).

resultsThe authors identified 4,300 free apps on the initial search, of which n=16 apps were included in the review. All 16 apps were freely available to the public on Google Play Store. Most apps (n=13) were also available on the iOS platform. All eligible apps had a privacy policy, and half of the apps contained advertisements. Most apps (n=12) were updated within the last year and received 4.5 or above ratings from users. Babybrains app, developed by a neuroscientist, had the lowest number of downloads (one thousand) whereas, BabyCenter, a commercial app, had the highest number of downloads (ten million). A majority of apps (n=11) received MARS scores between 4.2 and 4.4/5, with four apps received highest MARS score of 4.5/5, and one app received the lowest MARS rating of 4/5.

conclusionsApps play an increasingly important role in supporting new parents in their first year of parenthood due to convenience and ease of accessibility. Health care professionals are in an ideal position to support technologically savvy parents in locating good quality apps; therefore, they should support the evaluation of existing parenting apps to ensure that the parents are presented with the up to date and best options.

Indexed as

Mobile applications (apps)Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS)parenting apps

Identifiers

PMID31620471
PMCPMC6789304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.