Cited by 334Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Mobile Applications for Weight Management

Azar, Kristen M.J., Lesser, Lenard I., Laing, Brian Y., Stephens, Janna, Aurora, Magi S., Burke, Lora E., Palaniappan, Latha P.·2013·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Background The use of smartphone applications (apps) to assist with weight management is increasingly prevalent, but the quality of these apps is not well characterized.Purpose The goal of the study was to evaluate diet/nutrition and anthropometric tracking apps based on incorporation of features consistent with theories of behavior change.Methods A comparative, descriptive assessment was conducted of the top-rated free apps in the Health and Fitness category available in the iTunes App Store. Health and Fitness apps (N=200) were evaluated using predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria and categorized based on commonality in functionality, features, and developer description. Four researchers then evaluated the two most popular apps in each category using two instruments: one based on traditional behavioral theory (score range: 0-100) and the other on the Fogg Behavioral Model (score range: 0-6). Data collection and analysis occurred in November 2012.Results Eligible apps (n=23) were divided into five categories: (1) diet tracking; (2) healthy cooking; (3) weight/anthropometric tracking; (4) grocery decision making; and (5) restaurant decision making. The mean behavioral theory score was 8.1 (SD=4.2); the mean persuasive technology score was 1.9 (SD=1.7). The top-rated app on both scales was Lose It! by Fitnow Inc.Conclusions All apps received low overall scores for inclusion of behavioral theory-based strategies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.07.005

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Azar, K. M. J., Lesser, L. I., Laing, B. Y., Stephens, J., Aurora, M. S., Burke, L. E., & Palaniappan, L. P.
Affiliations
  • Palo Alto Medical Foundation (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Azar, Kristen M.J.
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-11
Volume
45
Issue
5
Pages
583-589
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1966427543
Cited by
334
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 1
FWCI
56.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R18DK096394)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
mobile health apps, weight management, behaviour change theory, Fogg Behavior Model, persuasive technology, app quality assessment, nutrition apps
MeSH terms
Anthropometry, Body Weight, Cooking, Decision Making, Diet, Humans, Weight Loss, Health Behavior, Cell Phone, Weight Reduction Programs, Mobile Applications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review