ArticleBMC public health2025
Development of a health-tracking tool for the Brazilian population: a pilot study with Brazilian women.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMobile apps can promote different behavioral interventions, thus decreasing preventable health problems. Challenges persist in ensuring the quality and reliability of these applications, as few have undergone rigorous scientific evaluation. Additionally, few scientifically validated questionnaires on well-being, adapted for the general public, are available in the literature. The objective of this study was to test and validate a general health assessment instrument based on questionnaires available in the literature, previously validated for the Brazilian population.
methodsThe tracking tool was tested with healthy women, 18 to 50 years old. The instrument was constructed as a 29-question online form comprising 5 main clusters or "pillars" of individual health: general health, diet and nutrition, movement and activity, sleep, and mental health. The original and adapted versions of two sections (Sleep and Mental Health) were applied in a subsample of participants to compare intra-individual variability. Data from the "Mental Health" and "Sleep" sections were rigorously tested for normality and Pearson's correlation test was performed to compare the results of the original and adapted versions intra-individually. Chi-Square and McNemar tests were employed to pair categorical data and account for correspondence between the answers to the two forms of the questionnaires.
resultsSeventy-one women answered the instrument with the proposed adapted versions of the questionnaires. The average completion time was between 12-20 min. The mean scores of the diet, movement, and general health questionnaires were similar to those of the original questionnaires from which questions were taken. The "Sleep" and "Mental Health" exhibited intra-individual divergences concerning the classification of results. The correlation between the original and adapted versions was improved after revising some of the questions (r = 0.9287; p < 0.0001).
conclusionThe results of the present study demonstrate that this adapted instrument is valid and reliable for assessing the intended five pillars of health. Studies with larger sample sizes and other populations are encouraged.
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.