CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 44Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsUsability and User Interface DesignDigital Mental Health Interventions

Assessing the Quality of Mobile Phone Apps for Weight Management: User-Centered Study With Employees From a Lebanese University

Open access
Bardus, Marco, Ali, Ahmed, Demachkieh, Farah, Hamadeh, Ghassan·2019·JMIR mHealth and uHealth
DOI 10.2196/mhealth.9836PMC PMC6364203

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evaluating the quality of mobile health apps for weight loss and weight management is important to understand whether these can be used for obesity prevention and treatment. Recent reviews call for more research on multidimensional aspects of app quality, especially involving end users, as there are already many expert reviews on this domain. However, no quantitative study has investigated how laypersons see popular apps for weight management and perceive different dimensions of app quality. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore how laypersons evaluate the quality of 6 free weight management apps (My Diet Coach, SparkPeople, Lark, MyFitnessPal, MyPlate, and My Diet Diary), which achieved the highest quality ratings in a related and recent expert review. METHODS: A user-centered study was conducted with 36 employees of a Lebanese university. Participants enrolled in the study on a rolling basis between October 2016 and March 2017. Participants were randomly assigned an app to use for 2 weeks. App quality was evaluated at the end of the trial period using the Mobile App Rating Scale user version (uMARS). uMARS assesses the dimensions of engagement, functionality, aesthetics, information, and subjective quality on 5-point scales. Internal consistency and interrater agreement were examined. The associations between uMARS scores and users' demographic characteristics were also explored using nonparametric tests. Analyses were completed in November 2017. RESULTS: Overall, the 6 apps were of moderately good quality (median uMARS score 3.6, interquartile range [IQR] 0.3). The highest total uMARS scores were achieved by Lark (mean 4.0 [SD 0.5]) and MyPlate (mean 3.8 [SD 0.4]), which also achieved the highest subjective quality scores (Lark: mean 3.3 [SD 1.4]; MyPlate: mean 3.3 [SD 0.8]). Functionality was the domain with the highest rating (median 3.9, IQR 0.3), followed by aesthetics (median 3.7, IQR 0.5), information (median 3.7, IQR 0.1), and engagement (median 3.3, IQR 0.2). Subjective quality was judged low (median 2.5, IQR 0.9). Overall, subjective quality was strongly and positively related (P<.001) with total uMARS score (ρ=.75), engagement (ρ=.68), information, and aesthetics (ρ=.60) but not functionality (ρ=.40; P=.02). Higher engagement scores were reported among healthy (P=.003) and obese individuals (P=.03), who also showed higher total uMARS (P=.04) and subjective quality (P=.05) scores. CONCLUSIONS: Although the apps were considered highly functional, they were relatively weak in engagement and subjective quality scores, indicating a low propensity of using the apps in the future. As engagement was the subdomain most strongly associated with subjective quality, app developers and researchers should focus on creating engaging apps, holding constant the functionality, aesthetics, and information quality. The tested apps (in particular Lark and MyPlate) were perceived as more engaging and of higher quality among healthy, obese individuals, making them a promising mode of delivery for self-directed interventions promoting weight control among the sampled population or in similar and comparable settings.

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.9836

Cites

0 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: 53

  1. [3]The Lancet Does mobile health matter? Lancet 2017 11 18 390 10109 2216 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32899-4 29165258 S0140-6736(17)32899-4 29165258 · DOI
  2. [6]Nikolaou CK Lean ME Mobile applications for obesity and weight management: current market characteristics Int J Obes (Lond) 2017 12 41 1 200 202 10.1038/ijo.2016.186 27780974 ijo2016186 27780974 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [8]Alnasser AA Alkhalifa AS Sathiaseelan A Marais D What overweight women want from a weight loss app: a qualitative study on arabic women JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2015 05 20 3 2 e41 10.2196/mhealth.4409 25993907 v3i2e41 25993907 PMC4454823 · DOI
  4. [10]Hoj TH Covey EL Jones AC Haines AC Hall PC Crookston BT West JH How do apps work? An analysis of physical activity app users' perceptions of behavior change mechanisms JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017 08 03 5 8 e114 10.2196/mhealth.7206 28778846 v5i8e114 28778846 PMC5561388 · DOI
  5. [12]West J Belvedere L Andreasen R Frandsen C Hall P Crookston B Controlling your “app”etite: how diet and nutrition-related mobile apps lead to behavior change JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017 07 10 5 7 e95 10.2196/mhealth.7410 28694241 v5i7e95 28694241 PMC5525004 · DOI
  6. [13]Semper HM Povey R Clark-Carter D A systematic review of the effectiveness of smartphone applications that encourage dietary self-regulatory strategies for weight loss in overweight and obese adults Obes Rev 2016 12 17 9 895 906 10.1111/obr.12428 27192162 27192162 · DOI
  7. [14]Aguilar-Martínez A Solé-Sedeño JM Mancebo-Moreno G Medina FX Carreras-Collado R Saigí-Rubió F Use of mobile phones as a tool for weight loss: a systematic review J Telemed Telecare 2014 09 20 6 339 49 10.1177/1357633X14537777 24875928 1357633X14537777 24875928 · DOI
  8. [15]Bardus M Smith JR Samaha L Abraham C Mobile phone and web 2.0 technologies for weight management: a systematic scoping review J Med Internet Res 2015 11 16 17 11 e259 10.2196/jmir.5129 26573984 v17i11e259 26573984 PMC4704945 · DOI
  9. [16]Quelly SB Norris AE DiPietro JL Impact of mobile apps to combat obesity in children and adolescents: a systematic literature review J Spec Pediatr Nurs 2016 01 21 1 5 17 10.1111/jspn.12134 26494019 26494019 · DOI
  10. [17]Riaz S Sykes C Are smartphone health applications effective in modifying obesity and smoking behaviours? A systematic review Health Technol 2015 3 25 5 2 73 81 10.1007/s12553-015-0104-4 · DOI
  11. [18]Flores Mateo G Granado-Font E Ferré-Grau C Montaña-Carreras X Mobile phone apps to promote weight loss and increase physical activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Med Internet Res 2015 11 10 17 11 e253 10.2196/jmir.4836 26554314 v17i11e253 26554314 PMC4704965 · DOI · Paper page
  12. [19]Bardus M Smith JR Samaha L Abraham C Mobile and Web 2.0 interventions for weight management: an overview of review evidence and its methodological quality Eur J Public Health 2016 08 26 4 602 10 10.1093/eurpub/ckw090 27335330 ckw090 27335330 PMC5885948 · DOI
  13. [20]Schippers M Adam PC Smolenski DJ Wong HT de Wit JB A meta-analysis of overall effects of weight loss interventions delivered via mobile phones and effect size differences according to delivery mode, personal contact, and intervention intensity and duration Obes Rev 2017 12 18 4 450 459 10.1111/obr.12492 28187246 28187246 · DOI · Paper page
  14. [22]Tang JC Abraham C Greaves CJ Nikolaou V Self-directed interventions to promote weight loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis Health Psychol Rev 2016 09 10 3 358 72 10.1080/17437199.2016.1172979 27091296 27091296 · DOI
  15. [23]Tang J Abraham C Greaves C Yates T Self-directed interventions to promote weight loss: a systematic review of reviews J Med Internet Res 2014 02 19 16 2 e58 10.2196/jmir.2857 24554464 v16i2e58 24554464 PMC3961624 · DOI
  16. [24]Fukuoka Y Gay CL Joiner KL Vittinghoff E A novel diabetes prevention intervention using a mobile app: a randomized controlled trial with overweight adults at risk Am J Prev Med 2015 08 49 2 223 37 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.01.003 26033349 S0749-3797(15)00023-9 26033349 PMC4509889 · DOI · Paper page
  17. [26]Ipjian ML Johnston CS Smartphone technology facilitates dietary change in healthy adults Nutrition 2017 01 33 343 347 10.1016/j.nut.2016.08.003 27742102 S0899-9007(16)30167-8 27742102 · DOI
  18. [27]Laing BY Mangione CM Tseng C Leng M Vaisberg E Mahida M Bholat M Glazier E Morisky DE Bell DS Effectiveness of a smartphone application for weight loss compared with usual care in overweight primary care patients: a randomized, controlled trial Ann Intern Med 2014 11 18 161 10 Suppl S5 12 10.7326/M13-3005 25402403 1935738 25402403 PMC4422872 · DOI · Paper page
  19. [28]Jospe MR Roy M Brown RC Williams SM Osborne HR Meredith-Jones KA McArthur JR Fleming EA Taylor RW The effect of different types of monitoring strategies on weight loss: a randomized controlled trial Obesity (Silver Spring) 2017 12 25 9 1490 1498 10.1002/oby.21898 10.1002/oby.21898 28703448 28703448 · DOI
  20. [29]Nollen NL Mayo MS Carlson SE Rapoff MA Goggin KJ Ellerbeck EF Mobile technology for obesity prevention: a randomized pilot study in racial- and ethnic-minority girls Am J Prev Med 2014 04 46 4 404 8 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.12.011 24650843 S0749-3797(13)00694-6 24650843 PMC3962588 · DOI
  21. [31]Direito A Dale LP Shields E Dobson R Whittaker R Maddison R Do physical activity and dietary smartphone applications incorporate evidence-based behaviour change techniques? BMC Public Health 2014 06 25 14 646 10.1186/1471-2458-14-646 24965805 1471-2458-14-646 24965805 PMC4080693 · DOI
  22. [32]Conroy DE Yang C Maher JP Behavior change techniques in top-ranked mobile apps for physical activity Am J Prev Med 2014 06 46 6 649 52 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.01.010 24842742 S0749-3797(14)00040-3 24842742 · DOI
  23. [33]Cowan LT Van Wagenen SA Brown BA Hedin RJ Seino-Stephan Y Hall PC West JH Apps of steel: are exercise apps providing consumers with realistic expectations?: a content analysis of exercise apps for presence of behavior change theory Health Educ Behav 2013 04 40 2 133 9 10.1177/1090198112452126 22991048 1090198112452126 22991048 · DOI · Paper page
  24. [35]Azar KM Lesser LI Laing BY Stephens J Aurora MS Burke LE Palaniappan LP Mobile applications for weight management: theory-based content analysis Am J Prev Med 2013 11 45 5 583 9 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.07.005 24139771 S0749-3797(13)00431-5 24139771 · DOI · Paper page
  25. [40]Zhu H Xiong H Ge Y Chen E Discovery of ranking fraud for mobile apps IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 2015 1 27 1 74 87 10.1109/TKDE.2014.2320733 · DOI
  26. [41]Solbrig L Jones R Kavanagh D May J Parkin T Andrade J People trying to lose weight dislike calorie counting apps and want motivational support to help them achieve their goals Internet Interv 2017 03 7 23 31 10.1016/j.invent.2016.12.003 28286739 S2214-7829(16)30039-2 28286739 PMC5332530 · DOI · Paper page
  27. [44]Domnich A Arata L Amicizia D Signori A Patrick B Stoyanov S Hides L Gasparini R Panatto D Development and validation of the Italian version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale and its generalisability to apps targeting primary prevention BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2016 12 07 16 83 10.1186/s12911-016-0323-2 27387434 10.1186/s12911-016-0323-2 27387434 PMC4936279 · DOI
  28. [45]Wilson H Stoyanov SR Gandabhai S Baldwin A The quality and accuracy of mobile apps to prevent driving after drinking alcohol JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2016 08 08 4 3 e98 10.2196/mhealth.5961 27502956 v4i3e98 27502956 PMC4993865 · DOI
  29. [46]Sullivan RK Marsh S Halvarsson J Holdsworth M Waterlander W Poelman MP Salmond JA Christian H Koh LS Cade JE Spence JC Woodward A Maddison R Smartphone apps for measuring human health and climate Change co-benefits: a comparison and quality rating of available apps JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2016 12 19 4 4 e135 10.2196/mhealth.5931 27993762 v4i4e135 27993762 PMC5206483 · DOI
  30. [47]Santo K Richtering SS Chalmers J Thiagalingam A Chow CK Redfern J Mobile phone apps to improve medication adherence: a systematic stepwise process to identify high-quality apps JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2016 12 02 4 4 e132 10.2196/mhealth.6742 27913373 v4i4e132 27913373 PMC5161780 · DOI
  31. [49]Zini F Reinstadler M Ricci F Giokas K Bokor L Hopfgartner F Increasing Quality of Life Awareness with Life-Logging eHealth 360° 2017 Cham Springer 282 293
  32. [50]Grainger R Townsley H White B Langlotz T Taylor WJ Apps for people with Rheumatoid arthritis to monitor their disease activity: a review of apps for best practice and quality JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2017 02 21 5 2 e7 10.2196/mhealth.6956 28223263 v5i2e7 28223263 PMC5340922 · DOI
  33. [51]Patel R Sulzberger L Li G Mair J Morley H Shing MN O'Leary C Prakash A Robilliard N Rutherford M Sharpe C Shie C Sritharan L Turnbull J Whyte I Yu H Cleghorn C Leung W Wilson N Smartphone apps for weight loss and smoking cessation: quality ranking of 120 apps N Z Med J 2015 09 04 128 1421 73 6 26370762 26370762
  34. [52]Goyal S Lewis G Yu C Rotondi M Seto E Cafazzo JA Evaluation of a behavioral mobile phone app intervention for the self-management of type 2 diabetes: randomized controlled trial protocol JMIR Res Protoc 2016 08 19 5 3 e174 10.2196/resprot.5959 27542325 v5i3e174 27542325 PMC5010649 · DOI
  35. [53]Mareva S Thomson D Marenco P Estal Muñoz V Ott C Schmidt B Wingen T Kassianos A Study protocol on ecological momentary assessment of health-related quality of life using a smartphone application Front Psychol 2016 7 1086 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01086 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01086 27486425 27486425 PMC4947580 · DOI
  36. [54]Panatto D Domnich A Gasparini R Bonanni P Icardi G Amicizia D Arata L Carozzo S Signori A Bechini A Boccalini S An eHealth project on invasive Pneumococcal disease: comprehensive evaluation of a promotional campaign J Med Internet Res 2016 12 02 18 12 e316 10.2196/jmir.6205 27913372 v18i12e316 27913372 PMC5161781 · DOI
  37. [55]White BK Martin A White JA Burns SK Maycock BR Giglia RC Scott JA Theory-based design and development of a socially connected, gamified mobile app for men about breastfeeding (milk man) JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2016 06 27 4 2 e81 10.2196/mhealth.5652 27349756 v4i2e81 27349756 PMC4940606 · DOI · Paper page
  38. [57]Nielsen J Heuristic evaluation Usability Inspection Methods 1994 New York, NY, USA John Wiley & Sons, Inc 25 62
  39. [60]Hallgren KA Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and tutorial Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 2012 8 1 23 34 22833776 22833776 PMC3402032
  40. [61]Gwet K Handbook of Inter-Rater Reliability: The Definitive Guide to Measuring the Extent of Agreement Among Multiple Raters, 3rd Edition. 3rd edition 2012 Gaithersburg, MD Advanced Analytics, LLC
  41. [62]O'Neill TA An overview of interrater agreement on likert scales for researchers and practitioners Front Psychol 2017 8 777 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00777 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00777 28553257 28553257 PMC5427087 · DOI
  42. [64]James LR Demaree RG Wolf G Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias J Appl Psychol 1984 69 1 85 98 10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 · DOI · Paper page
  43. [66]Biemann T Cole MS Voelpel S Within-group agreement: on the use (and misuse) of rWG and rWG(J) in leadership research and some best practice guidelines Leadersh Q 2012 2 23 1 66 80 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.006 · DOI
  44. [67]Brown RD Hauenstein NM Interrater agreement reconsidered: an Alternative to the rwg indices Organ Res Methods 2016 06 29 8 2 165 184 10.1177/1094428105275376 · DOI
  45. [68]Lohse-Bossenz H Kunina-Habenicht O Kunter M Estimating within-group agreement in small groups: a proposed adjustment for the average deviation index Eur J Work Organ Psychol 2013 01 25 23 3 456 468 10.1080/1359432X.2012.748189 · DOI
  46. [69]Van Bruggen GH Lilien G Kacker M Informants in organizational marketing research: why use multiple informants and how to aggregate responses J Mark Res 2002 11 39 4 469 478 10.1509/jmkr.39.4.469.19117 · DOI
  47. [70]Wagner SM Rau C Lindemann E Multiple informant methodology: a critical review and recommendations Sociol Methods Res 2010 06 16 38 4 582 618 10.1177/0049124110366231 · DOI
  48. [71]Leuffen D Shikano S Walter S Measurement and data aggregation in small-n social scientific research Eur Polit Sci 2012 3 30 12 1 40 51 10.1057/eps.2012.8 · DOI
  49. [72]Woehr DJ Loignon AC Schmidt PB Loughry ML Ohland MW Justifying aggregation with consensus-based constructs Organ Res Methods 2015 05 05 18 4 704 737 10.1177/1094428115582090 · DOI
  50. [73]Curtin F Schulz P Multiple correlations and Bonferroni's correction Biol Psychiatry 1998 10 15 44 8 775 7 9798082 S0006-3223(98)00043-2 9798082
  51. [74]Barnes SA Lindborg SR Seaman JW Multiple imputation techniques in small sample clinical trials Stat Med 2006 01 30 25 2 233 45 10.1002/sim.2231 16220515 16220515 · DOI
  52. [76]Tavakol M Dennick R Making sense of Cronbach's alpha Int J Med Educ 2011 06 27 2 53 55 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd 28029643 ijme.2.5355 28029643 PMC4205511 · DOI · Paper page
  53. [77]Sijtsma K On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach's alpha Psychometrika 2009 03 74 1 107 120 10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0 20037639 20037639 PMC2792363 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bardus, M., Ali, A., Demachkieh, F., & Hamadeh, G.
Affiliations
American University of Beirut (LB)
Corresponding author
Bardus, Marco
ORCID
Venue
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Publisher
JMIR Publications Inc.
Published
2019-01-23
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
e9836
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2196/mhealth.9836
PMC
PMC6364203
OpenAlex
W2895983283
Cited by
44
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.82
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)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
mobile health apps, app quality, user-centered evaluation, Mobile App Rating Scale, user engagement, app aesthetics, app functionality, subjective quality, obesity prevention, MyPlate, MyFitnessPal, Alaudidae, university employees, layperson perception, free apps
MeSH terms
Body Weight Maintenance, Body Weight, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Lebanon, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Universities, Young Adult, 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