Observational studyBMJ open2019
Relationship between popularity and the likely efficacy: an observational study based on a random selection on top-ranked physical activity apps.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Translation and validation of the traditional Chinese Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS-TW) for evaluating mHealth apps.mHealth · 2025Article
- An Evaluation Service for Digital Public Health Interventions: User-Centered Design Approach.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the relationship between popularity of mobile application (apps) for physical activity (PA) and their likely efficacy. The primary objective was to assess the association between app popularity (indicated by user ratings) and likely efficacy (indicated by the number of Behaviour Change Techniques (BCT) present). The secondary objective was to assess the relationship between user ratings and those BCTs that have been shown to be effective in increasing PA.
designObservational study.
methods400 top-ranked free and paid apps from iTunes and Google Play stores were screened, and were included if the primary behaviour targeted was PA and they had stand-alone functionality. The outcome variable of user rating was dichotomised into high (4, 5 stars) or low (1, 2, 3 stars) rating.
settingiTunes and Google Play app stores.
participantsNo individual participants but the study used user-led rating system in the app store. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: BCTs and user rating.
resultsOf 400 apps, 156 were eligible and 65 were randomly selected, downloaded and assessed by two reviewers. There was no relationship overall between star ratings and the number of BCTs present, nor between star ratings and the presence of BCTs known to be effective in increasing PA. App store was strongly associated with star ratings, with lower likelihood of finding 4 or 5 stars in iTunes compared with Google Play (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.76, p<0.001).
conclusionsThe findings of this study suggest that popularity does not necessarily imply the likelihood of effectiveness. Hence, public health impact is unlikely to be achieved by allowing market forces to 'prescribe' what is used by the public.
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.