Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31833237›Full record

ReviewMaternal & child nutrition2020

Smartphone applications available to pregnant women in the United Kingdom: An assessment of nutritional information.

Catherine Bland, Kathryn V Dalrymple, Sara L White, Amanda Moore, Lucilla Poston, Angela C Flynn

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Maternal & child nutrition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Pregnancy Apps for Self-Monitoring: Scoping Review of the Most Popular Global Apps Available in Australia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

6 authors.

Catherine BlandDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Kathryn V DalrympleDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0958-6725
Sara L WhiteDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Amanda MooreDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Lucilla PostonDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Angela C FlynnDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8438-1506

Funding

British Heart Foundation FS/17/71/32953Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 208925/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The importance of diet during pregnancy is critically important for the short- and long-term health of both mother and child. The number of apps targeting pregnant women is rapidly increasing, yet the nutritional content of these tools remains largely unexplored. This review aimed to evaluate the coverage and content of nutrition information in smartphone apps available to U.K. pregnant women. Keyword searches were conducted in iTunes and Google Play stores in November 2018. Candidate apps were included if they targeted pregnant women, provided pregnancy-specific nutritional information, had a user rating of at least 4+ based on at least 20 ratings, and were available in English. Nutritional content was assessed for accuracy against U.K. recommendations. Behaviour change techniques (BCTs) were also evaluated. Twenty-nine apps were included, seven of which originated in the United Kingdom. There was a large variability in the quality of smartphone app nutritional information. The accuracy of nutrition information varied, and several apps conveyed inappropriate information for pregnancy. On average, 10 BCTs were identified per app (range 2-15). Overall, smartphone apps do not consistently provide accurate and useful nutritional information to pregnant women. This study highlights the need for the integration of evidence-based nutritional information during app development and for increased regulatory oversight. App developers should also make it clear that nutritional content is intended for a specific geographical region or population or modify for the intended audience. These are important considerations for the design of future apps, which are increasingly used to complement existing maternity services.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorNutritional StatusAdultFemaleHealth PromotionHumansMobile ApplicationsPregnancySmartphoneUnited Kingdomaccuracyand nutritionbehaviour change techniquesmaternal nutritionpregnancysmartphone applications

Identifiers

PMID31833237
PMCPMC7083499

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.