ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Development, feasibility testing and evaluation of a family-oriented mobile application to promote healthy lifestyle in infants and parents during early life: a mixed methods study.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Early-life health behaviors are shaped within the family environment, influencing long-term metabolic and developmental outcomes. Mobile health (mHealth) applications are widely available but most lack clinical integration, behavioral theory grounding, and personalized interactivity. This study describes the development and feasibility testing of the Methods: Results: UEQ-KPI perspicuity decreased significantly among parents and HCPs from prototype to MVP. On UEQ, parents rated attractiveness, perspicuity, and stimulation above average, while efficiency, dependability, and novelty were lower. HCPs reported higher UEQ scores overall, with excellent ratings for attractiveness, perspicuity, and novelty. On uMARS, overall app quality was rated positive by both groups. Clinical usability was rated positively by HCPs on MAUQ. Content validity was acceptable (parents: ≥0.92 across domains except ambiguity at 0.80; HCPs: ≥0.83). Qualitative findings indicated that Conclusion:
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.