↓ Skip to main content

A review and content analysis of engagement, functionality, aesthetics, information quality, and change techniques in the most popular commercial apps for weight management

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
11 news outlets
twitter
44 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
314 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
507 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A review and content analysis of engagement, functionality, aesthetics, information quality, and change techniques in the most popular commercial apps for weight management
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12966-016-0359-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Bardus, Samantha B. van Beurden, Jane R. Smith, Charles Abraham

Abstract

There are thousands of apps promoting dietary improvement, increased physical activity (PA) and weight management. Despite a growing number of reviews in this area, popular apps have not been comprehensively analysed in terms of features related to engagement, functionality, aesthetics, information quality, and content, including the types of change techniques employed. The databases containing information about all Health and Fitness apps on GP and iTunes (7,954 and 25,491 apps) were downloaded in April 2015. Database filters were applied to select the most popular apps available in both stores. Two researchers screened the descriptions selecting only weight management apps. Features, app quality and content were independently assessed using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and previously-defined categories of techniques relevant to behaviour change. Inter-coder reliabilities were calculated, and correlations between features explored. Of the 23 popular apps included in the review 16 were free (70 %), 15 (65 %) addressed weight control, diet and PA combined; 19 (83 %) allowed behavioural tracking. On 5-point MARS scales, apps were of average quality (Md = 3.2, IQR = 1.4); "functionality" (Md = 4.0, IQR = 1.1) was the highest and "information quality" (Md = 2.0, IQR = 1.1) was the lowest domain. On average, 10 techniques were identified per app (range: 1-17) and of the 34 categories applied, goal setting and self-monitoring techniques were most frequently identified. App quality was positively correlated with number of techniques included (rho = .58, p < .01) and number of "technical" features (rho = .48, p < .05), which was also associated with the number of techniques included (rho = .61, p < .01). Apps that provided tracking used significantly more techniques than those that did not. Apps with automated tracking scored significantly higher in engagement, aesthetics, and overall MARS scores. Those that used change techniques previously associated with effectiveness (i.e., goal setting, self-monitoring and feedback) also had better "information quality". Popular apps assessed have overall moderate quality and include behavioural tracking features and a range of change techniques associated with behaviour change. These apps may influence behaviour, although more attention to information quality and evidence-based content are warranted to improve their quality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 507 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 504 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 104 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 63 12%
Student > Bachelor 55 11%
Researcher 49 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 29 6%
Other 91 18%
Unknown 116 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 60 12%
Psychology 53 10%
Computer Science 48 9%
Social Sciences 43 8%
Other 103 20%
Unknown 134 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 98. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2018.
All research outputs
#415,865
of 24,742,536 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#118
of 2,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,572
of 305,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#4
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,742,536 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,068 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 305,833 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.