Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34106073›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021

Quality of Physical Activity Apps: Systematic Search in App Stores and Content Analysis.

Sarah Paganini, Yannik Terhorst, Lasse Bosse Sander, Selma Catic, Sümeyye Balci, Ann-Marie Küchler, Dana Schultchen, Katrin Plaumann, Sarah Sturmbauer, Lena Violetta Krämer and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

15 authors.

Sarah PaganiniDepartment of Sport Psychology, Institute of Sports and Sport Science, Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4593-6278
Yannik TerhorstDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4091-5048
Lasse Bosse SanderDepartment of Rehabilitation Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology, Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4222-9837
Selma CaticDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Sümeyye BalciDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8219-6163
Ann-Marie KüchlerDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3305-4892
Dana SchultchenDepartment of Clinical and Health Psychology, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5623-535X
Katrin PlaumannInstitute of Media Informatics, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1895-0971
Sarah SturmbauerChair of Health Psychology, Department of Psychology, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8687-9663
Lena Violetta KrämerDepartment of Rehabilitation Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology, Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2162-0853
Jiaxi LinDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7021-3621
Ramona WurstDepartment of Sport Psychology, Institute of Sports and Sport Science, Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6011-7268
Rüdiger PryssInstitute of Clinical Epidemiology and Biometry, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1522-785X
Harald BaumeisterDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2040-661X
Eva-Maria MessnerDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6100-8354

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysical inactivity is a major contributor to the development and persistence of chronic diseases. Mobile health apps that foster physical activity have the potential to assist in behavior change. However, the quality of the mobile health apps available in app stores is hard to assess for making informed decisions by end users and health care providers.

objectiveThis study aimed at systematically reviewing and analyzing the content and quality of physical activity apps available in the 2 major app stores (Google Play and App Store) by using the German version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS-G). Moreover, the privacy and security measures were assessed.

methodsA web crawler was used to systematically search for apps promoting physical activity in the Google Play store and App Store. Two independent raters used the MARS-G to assess app quality. Further, app characteristics, content and functions, and privacy and security measures were assessed. The correlation between user star ratings and MARS was calculated. Exploratory regression analysis was conducted to determine relevant predictors for the overall quality of physical activity apps.

resultsOf the 2231 identified apps, 312 met the inclusion criteria. The results indicated that the overall quality was moderate (mean 3.60 [SD 0.59], range 1-4.75). The scores of the subscales, that is, information (mean 3.24 [SD 0.56], range 1.17-4.4), engagement (mean 3.19 [SD 0.82], range 1.2-5), aesthetics (mean 3.65 [SD 0.79], range 1-5), and functionality (mean 4.35 [SD 0.58], range 1.88-5) were obtained. An efficacy study could not be identified for any of the included apps. The features of data security and privacy were mainly not applied. Average user ratings showed significant small correlations with the MARS ratings (r=0.22, 95% CI 0.08-0.35; P<.001). The amount of content and number of functions were predictive of the overall quality of these physical activity apps, whereas app store and price were not.

conclusionsApps for physical activity showed a broad range of quality ratings, with moderate overall quality ratings. Given the present privacy, security, and evidence concerns inherent to most rated apps, their medical use is questionable. There is a need for open-source databases of expert quality ratings to foster informed health care decisions by users and health care providers.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsDelivery of Health CareExerciseHumansPrivacySedentary BehaviorexercisemHealthmobile appsquality indicatorssportssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34106073
PMCPMC8262667

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.