Cited by 156Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsPhysical Activity and Health

Quality of Publicly Available Physical Activity Apps: Review and Content Analysis

Open access
Bondaronek, Paulina, Alkhaldi, Ghadah, Slee, April, Hamilton, Fiona L, Murray, Elizabeth·2018·JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Within the new digital health landscape, the rise of health apps creates novel prospects for health promotion. The market is saturated with apps that aim to increase physical activity (PA). Despite the wide distribution and popularity of PA apps, there are limited data on their effectiveness, user experience, and safety of personal data. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review and content analysis was to evaluate the quality of the most popular PA apps on the market using health care quality indicators. METHODS: The top-ranked 400 free and paid apps from iTunes and Google Play stores were screened. Apps were included if the primary behavior targeted was PA, targeted users were adults, and the apps had stand-alone functionality. The apps were downloaded on mobile phones and assessed by 2 reviewers against the following quality assessment criteria: (1) users' data privacy and security, (2) presence of behavior change techniques (BCTs) and quality of the development and evaluation processes, and (3) user ratings and usability. RESULTS: Out of 400 apps, 156 met the inclusion criteria, of which 65 apps were randomly selected to be downloaded and assessed. Almost 30% apps (19/65) did not have privacy policy. Every app contained at least one BCT, with an average number of 7 and a maximum of 13 BCTs. All but one app had commercial affiliation, 12 consulted an expert, and none reported involving users in the app development. Only 12 of 65 apps had a peer-reviewed study connected to the app. User ratings were high, with only a quarter of the ratings falling below 4 stars. The median usability score was excellent-86.3 out of 100. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the popularity of PA apps available on the commercial market, there were substantial shortcomings in the areas of data safety and likelihood of effectiveness of the apps assessed. The limited quality of the apps may represent a missed opportunity for PA promotion.

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/mhealth.9069

Cites

52 of 52 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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [64]Girardello A Michahelles F AppAware: which mobile applications are hot? 2010 09 Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction With Mobile Devices Services 2010 Lisbon, Portugal

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bondaronek, P., Alkhaldi, G., Slee, A., Hamilton, F. L., & Murray, E.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • King Saud University (SA)
Corresponding author
Bondaronek, Paulina
Venue
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Published
2018-03-21
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
e53
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2793636399
Cited by
156
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 5
FWCI
3.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (CL-2013-18-004)
  • University College London
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
Keywords
physical activity apps, mobile health apps, app quality assessment, behaviour change techniques, data privacy and security, user ratings, usability, digital health promotion

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