Quality of Physical Activity Apps: Systematic Search in App Stores and Content Analysis.
exercise
mHealth
mobile apps
quality indicators
sports
systematic review
Journal
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
ISSN: 2291-5222
Titre abrégé: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101624439
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 06 2021
09 06 2021
Historique:
received:
17
07
2020
accepted:
05
01
2021
revised:
30
11
2020
entrez:
9
6
2021
pubmed:
10
6
2021
medline:
8
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Physical 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. This 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. A 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. Of 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. Apps 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Physical 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.
OBJECTIVE
This 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.
METHODS
A 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.
RESULTS
Of 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.
CONCLUSIONS
Apps 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34106073
pii: v9i6e22587
doi: 10.2196/22587
pmc: PMC8262667
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e22587Informations de copyright
©Sarah Paganini, Yannik Terhorst, Lasse Bosse Sander, Selma Catic, Sümeyye Balci, Ann-Marie Küchler, Dana Schultchen, Katrin Plaumann, Sarah Sturmbauer, Lena Violetta Krämer, Jiaxi Lin, Ramona Wurst, Rüdiger Pryss, Harald Baumeister, Eva-Maria Messner. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (https://mhealth.jmir.org), 09.06.2021.
Références
Educ Health (Abingdon). 2003 Jul;16(2):230
pubmed: 14741909
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Aug 05;7(8):e14991
pubmed: 31381501
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018 Feb;28(2):641-648
pubmed: 28543566
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Mar 19;21(3):e12053
pubmed: 30888321
Am J Prev Med. 2020 Feb;58(2):e51-e62
pubmed: 31959326
Lancet. 2012 Jul 21;380(9838):247-57
pubmed: 22818937
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Apr 5;2(4):e192542
pubmed: 31002321
PLoS One. 2020 Nov 2;15(11):e0241480
pubmed: 33137123
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015 Mar 11;3(1):e27
pubmed: 25760773
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Mar 21;6(3):e53
pubmed: 29563080
Behav Modif. 2015 Nov;39(6):785-804
pubmed: 26187164
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006 Jan;38(1):173-8
pubmed: 16394971
J Pediatr Psychol. 2015 May;40(4):373-84
pubmed: 25502745
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2013 Jul-Aug;35(4):332-8
pubmed: 23664503
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015 Nov 04;3(4):e101
pubmed: 26537656
Lancet. 2012 Jul 21;380(9838):219-29
pubmed: 22818936
Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2020 Jan 9;11(1):1701788
pubmed: 32002136
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016 Mar 10;13:35
pubmed: 26964880
JMIR Aging. 2021 Feb 19;4(1):e23313
pubmed: 33605884
Am J Prev Med. 2014 Jun;46(6):649-52
pubmed: 24842742
Br J Sports Med. 2017 Aug;51(16):1237-1239
pubmed: 28760947
Internet Interv. 2021 Feb 24;24:100376
pubmed: 33718002
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Dec;34(12):2833-2841
pubmed: 31529374
Health Psychol. 2008 May;27(3):379-87
pubmed: 18624603
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Apr 19;19(4):e125
pubmed: 28428170
Int J Behav Med. 2020 Nov 20;:
pubmed: 33215348
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Nov 10;17(11):e253
pubmed: 26554314
BMC Public Health. 2014 Jun 25;14:646
pubmed: 24965805
Mhealth. 2018 Jun 04;4:18
pubmed: 30050914
J Telemed Telecare. 2018 Jan;24(1):22-30
pubmed: 27760883
Transl Behav Med. 2018 Sep 8;8(5):793-798
pubmed: 29471424
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Mar 27;8(3):e14479
pubmed: 32217504
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017 Jun 24;14(1):83
pubmed: 28646889
Jacobs J Community Med. 2016;2(1):
pubmed: 27034992
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014 Jul 25;11:97
pubmed: 25059981
J Med Internet Res. 2014 Aug 15;16(8):e192
pubmed: 25131661