Cited by 487Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsPhysical Activity and HealthDigital Mental Health Interventions

Can smartphone apps increase physical activity? Systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Romeo, Amelia, Edney, Sarah, Plotnikoff, Ronald, Curtis, Rachel, Ryan, Jillian, Sanders, Ilea, Crozier, Alyson, Maher, Carol·2019·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Smartphone apps are a promising tool for delivering accessible and appealing physical activity interventions. Given the large growth of research in this field, there are now enough studies using the "gold standard" of experimental design-the randomized controlled trial design-and employing objective measurements of physical activity, to support a meta-analysis of these scientifically rigorous studies. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of smartphone apps for increasing objectively measured physical activity in adults. METHODS: A total of 7 electronic databases (EMBASE, EmCare, MEDLINE, Scopus, Sport Discus, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched from 2007 to January 2018. Following the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome and Study Design format, studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials involving adults, used a smartphone app as the primary or sole component of the physical activity intervention, used a no- or minimal-intervention control condition, and measured objective physical activity either in the form of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity minutes or steps. Study quality was assessed using a 25-item tool based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials checklist. A meta-analysis of study effects was conducted using a random effects model approach. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine whether intervention effectiveness differed on the basis of intervention length, target behavior (physical activity alone vs physical activity in combination with other health behaviors), or target population (general adult population vs specific health populations). RESULTS: Following removal of duplicates, a total of 6170 studies were identified from the original database searches. Of these, 9 studies, involving a total of 1740 participants, met eligibility criteria. Of these, 6 studies could be included in a meta-analysis of the effects of physical activity apps on steps per day. In comparison with the control conditions, smartphone apps produced a nonsignificant (P=.19) increase in participants' average steps per day, with a mean difference of 476.75 steps per day (95% CI -229.57 to 1183.07) between groups. Sensitivity analyses suggested that physical activity programs with a duration of less than 3 months were more effective than apps evaluated across more than 3 months (P=.01), and that physical activity apps that targeted physical activity in isolation were more effective than apps that targeted physical activity in combination with diet (P=.04). Physical activity app effectiveness did not appear to differ on the basis of target population. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis provides modest evidence supporting the effectiveness of smartphone apps to increase physical activity. To date, apps have been most effective in the short term (eg, up to 3 months). Future research is needed to understand the time course of intervention effects and to investigate strategies to sustain intervention effects over time.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/12053

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Romeo, A., Edney, S., Plotnikoff, R., Curtis, R., Ryan, J., Sanders, I., Crozier, A., & Maher, C.
Affiliations
  • University of South Australia (AU)
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
Corresponding author
Maher, Carol
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2019-03-19
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
e12053
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2904460099
Cited by
487
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 82 · 2021: 108 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 19
FWCI
8.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UniSA Research Outputs Repository (University of South Australia) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • National University of Singapore (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Australian Government
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1080186, 1125913)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
mobile application, physical activity interventions, step count, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, objective physical activity measurement, adults, intervention duration, health behavior change, mobile health
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Adult, Humans, Health Behavior, Exercise, 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