Nutrition-Related Mobile Apps in the French App Stores: Assessment of Functionality and Quality.
French
behavior change
diet
healthy food
lifestyle
mHealth
mobile apps
mobile health
nutrition
prevention
Journal
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
ISSN: 2291-5222
Titre abrégé: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101624439
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 03 2022
14 03 2022
Historique:
received:
21
12
2021
accepted:
27
01
2022
revised:
01
01
2022
entrez:
14
3
2022
pubmed:
15
3
2022
medline:
5
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The global burden of disease attributes 20% of deaths to poor nutrition. Although hundreds of nutrition-related mobile apps have been created, and these have been downloaded by millions of users, the effectiveness of these technologies on the adoption of healthy eating has had mixed. The aim of this study was to review which nutrition-related mobile apps are currently available on the French market and assess their quality. We screened apps on the Google Play Store and the French Apple App Store, from March 10 to 17, 2021, to identify those related to nutritional health. A shortlist of 15 apps was identified, and each was assessed using the French version of the Mobile App Rating Scale: 8 dietitians and nutritionists assessed 7 apps, and the remaining apps were randomly allocated to ensure 4 assessments per app. Intraclass correlation was used to evaluate interrater agreement. Means and standard deviations of scores for each section and each item were calculated. The top scores for overall quality were obtained by Yazio - Régime et Calories (mean 3.84, SD 0.32), FeelEat (mean 3.71, SD 0.47), and Bonne App (mean 3.65, SD 0.09). Engagement scores ranged from a mean of 1.95 (SD 0.5) for iEatBetter: Journal alimentaire to a mean of 3.85 (SD 0.44) for FeelEat. Functionality scores ranged from a mean of 2.25 (SD 0.54) for Naor to a mean of 4.25 (SD 0.46) for Yazio. Aesthetics scores ranged from a mean of 2.17 (SD 0.34) for Naor to a mean of 3.88 (SD 0.47) for Yazio. Information scores ranged from a mean of 2.38 (SD 0.60) for iEatBetter to a mean of 3.73 (SD 0.29) for Yazio. Subjective quality scores ranged from a mean of 1.13 (SD 0.25) for iEatBetter to a mean of 2.28 (SD 0.88) for Compteur de calories FatSecret. Specificity scores ranged from a mean of 1.38 (SD 0.64) for iEatBetter to a mean of 3.50 (SD 0.91) for FeelEat. The app-specific score was always lower than the subjective quality score, which was always lower than the quality score, which was lower than the rating from the iOS or Android app stores. Although prevention and information messages in apps regarding nutritional habits are not scientifically verified before marketing, we found that app quality was good. Subjective quality and specificity were associated with lower ratings. Further investigations are needed to assess whether information from these apps is consistent with recommendations and to determine the long-term impacts of these apps on users.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The global burden of disease attributes 20% of deaths to poor nutrition. Although hundreds of nutrition-related mobile apps have been created, and these have been downloaded by millions of users, the effectiveness of these technologies on the adoption of healthy eating has had mixed.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to review which nutrition-related mobile apps are currently available on the French market and assess their quality.
METHODS
We screened apps on the Google Play Store and the French Apple App Store, from March 10 to 17, 2021, to identify those related to nutritional health. A shortlist of 15 apps was identified, and each was assessed using the French version of the Mobile App Rating Scale: 8 dietitians and nutritionists assessed 7 apps, and the remaining apps were randomly allocated to ensure 4 assessments per app. Intraclass correlation was used to evaluate interrater agreement. Means and standard deviations of scores for each section and each item were calculated.
RESULTS
The top scores for overall quality were obtained by Yazio - Régime et Calories (mean 3.84, SD 0.32), FeelEat (mean 3.71, SD 0.47), and Bonne App (mean 3.65, SD 0.09). Engagement scores ranged from a mean of 1.95 (SD 0.5) for iEatBetter: Journal alimentaire to a mean of 3.85 (SD 0.44) for FeelEat. Functionality scores ranged from a mean of 2.25 (SD 0.54) for Naor to a mean of 4.25 (SD 0.46) for Yazio. Aesthetics scores ranged from a mean of 2.17 (SD 0.34) for Naor to a mean of 3.88 (SD 0.47) for Yazio. Information scores ranged from a mean of 2.38 (SD 0.60) for iEatBetter to a mean of 3.73 (SD 0.29) for Yazio. Subjective quality scores ranged from a mean of 1.13 (SD 0.25) for iEatBetter to a mean of 2.28 (SD 0.88) for Compteur de calories FatSecret. Specificity scores ranged from a mean of 1.38 (SD 0.64) for iEatBetter to a mean of 3.50 (SD 0.91) for FeelEat. The app-specific score was always lower than the subjective quality score, which was always lower than the quality score, which was lower than the rating from the iOS or Android app stores.
CONCLUSIONS
Although prevention and information messages in apps regarding nutritional habits are not scientifically verified before marketing, we found that app quality was good. Subjective quality and specificity were associated with lower ratings. Further investigations are needed to assess whether information from these apps is consistent with recommendations and to determine the long-term impacts of these apps on users.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35285817
pii: v10i3e35879
doi: 10.2196/35879
pmc: PMC8961341
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e35879Informations de copyright
©Prescilla Martinon, Ina Saliasi, Denis Bourgeois, Colette Smentek, Claude Dussart, Laurie Fraticelli, Florence Carrouel. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (https://mhealth.jmir.org), 14.03.2022.
Références
Nutrition. 2021 Apr;84:111018
pubmed: 33046348
Obes Res Clin Pract. 2019 Mar - Apr;13(2):176-179
pubmed: 30826256
J Nutr Educ Behav. 2014 Sep-Oct;46(5):440-4
pubmed: 25220777
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Feb 28;7(2):e12209
pubmed: 30816851
Nutrients. 2020 Jul 24;12(8):
pubmed: 32722339
Public Health Nutr. 2019 May;22(7):1209-1214
pubmed: 29734965
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Dec 09;17(24):
pubmed: 33317134
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020 Oct 28;20(1):279
pubmed: 33115444
J Behav Med. 2021 Oct;44(5):605-621
pubmed: 33954853
J Med Internet Res. 2013 Apr 15;15(4):e32
pubmed: 23587561
Proc Nutr Soc. 2015 May;74(2):130-8
pubmed: 25497396
Jacobs J Food Nutr. 2015;2(3):021
pubmed: 26819969
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Feb 20;7(2):e9838
pubmed: 30785409
J Clin Med. 2021 Jan 07;10(2):
pubmed: 33430519
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Mar 28;18(7):
pubmed: 33800531
Obes Rev. 2019 Oct;20(10):1465-1484
pubmed: 31353783
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Jan 13;9(1):e24467
pubmed: 33439139
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Sep 16;8(9):e18339
pubmed: 32936078
Public Health Nutr. 2019 May;22(7):1215-1222
pubmed: 29962361
Lancet. 2019 May 11;393(10184):1958-1972
pubmed: 30954305
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Oct 25;6(10):e10718
pubmed: 30361196
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016 May 20;13:60
pubmed: 27206793
Eur J Hum Genet. 2019 Jun;27(6):833-840
pubmed: 30809045
Health Info Libr J. 2008 Jun;25(2):81-97
pubmed: 18494643
J Nutr Educ Behav. 2015 May-Jun;47(3):242-7
pubmed: 25959447
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Mar 13;6(3):e55
pubmed: 29535078
Nutrients. 2020 Oct 29;12(11):
pubmed: 33138210
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Oct 30;7(10):e14198
pubmed: 31670695
Lancet. 2018 Sep 22;392(10152):1072-1088
pubmed: 30264707
PLoS One. 2021 Feb 4;16(2):e0246061
pubmed: 33539433
Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8
pubmed: 18839484
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Oct 27;5(10):e163
pubmed: 29079554
Nephrology (Carlton). 2015 Oct;20(10):744-751
pubmed: 25959301
Sensors (Basel). 2021 Jun 30;21(13):
pubmed: 34208798
Int J Med Inform. 2019 Jun;126:95-104
pubmed: 31029270
Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2017 Jan 20;6(1):4
pubmed: 28138414
J Behav Med. 2020 Jun;43(3):391-401
pubmed: 31396820
Foods. 2021 Aug 12;10(8):
pubmed: 34441638
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Oct 21;22(10):e18237
pubmed: 33084583
Healthc Inform Res. 2018 Jan;24(1):38-45
pubmed: 29503751
J Nutr Educ Behav. 2018 Jan;50(1):62-69.e1
pubmed: 29325664
Nutrients. 2021 Aug 20;13(8):
pubmed: 34445026
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2019 Apr;119(4):626-651
pubmed: 30686742
NPJ Digit Med. 2020 Aug 27;3:110
pubmed: 32904379
J Telemed Telecare. 2015 Jul;21(5):243-53
pubmed: 25680388
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Oct 23;17(10):e240
pubmed: 26499966
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Jun 14;4(2):e74
pubmed: 27302310
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Jun 10;4(2):e72
pubmed: 27287964
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jul 30;7(7):e13261
pubmed: 31364606
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Aug 01;4(3):e85
pubmed: 27480144
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Feb 21;5(2):e7
pubmed: 28223263
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Aug 31;9(8):e30480
pubmed: 34463623
Bull World Health Organ. 2020 Dec 1;98(12):886-893
pubmed: 33293749
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015 Mar 11;3(1):e27
pubmed: 25760773
Nutrients. 2018 Oct 10;10(10):
pubmed: 30309008
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Jan 13;9(1):e19958
pubmed: 33439141