Search

Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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". Conclusions: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Published descriptions of group-based behaviour-change interventions (GB-BCIs) often omit design and delivery features specific to the group setting. This impedes the ability to compare behaviour-change interventions, synthesise evidence on their effectiveness and replicate effective interventions. The aim of this study was to develop a checklist of elements that should be described to ensure adequate reporting of GB-BCIs.Methods: A range of characteristics needed to replicate GB-BCIs were extracted from the literature and precisely defined. An abbreviated checklist and a coder manual were developed, pilot tested and refined. The final checklist and coder manual were used to identify the presence or absence of specified reporting elements in 30 published descriptions of GB-BCIs by two independent coders. Reliability of coding was assessed.Results: The checklist comprises 26 essential reporting elements, covering intervention design, intervention content, participant characteristics, and facilitator characteristics. Inter-rater reliability for identification of reporting elements was high (95% agreement, Mean AC1 = 0.89).Conclusion: The checklist is a practical tool that can be used, alongside other reporting guidelines, to ensure comprehensive description and to assess reporting quality of GB-BCIs. It can also be helpful for designing group-based health interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]