Weight loss-there is an app for that! But does it adhere to evidence-informed practices?
Weight loss-there is an app for that! But does it adhere to evidence-informed practices?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s13142-011-0076-5
复制
发表时间：
2011-12-01
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Abroms, Lorien C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Breton, Emily R.;Fuemmeler, Bernard F.;Abroms, Lorien C.
关于体重控制的智能手机应用程序在多大程度上遵循循证实践，人们知之甚少。本研究的目的是回顾和总结可用的体重控制应用程序的内容。有关内容、用户评级和价格的信息于 2009 年 9 月 25 日从 iTunes 中提取。应用程序 (n = 204) 进行了编码，以遵守 13 项基于证据的体重控制实践。潜在类别分析用于根据认可实践来识别应用程序子组。只有一小部分应用程序拥有 13 种做法中的 5 种或更多 (15%)。潜在类别分析揭示了三种主要类型的应用程序：饮食、体育活动和体重日记 (19%)；饮食建议和期刊（34%）；和体重追踪器（46%）。用户评分与这三个类别的应用程序无关。许多应用程序的证据不足的内容。需要进行研究来开发、改进和评估这些应用程序。
Little is known about how much smartphone apps for weight control adhere to evidence-informed practices. The aim of this study was to review and summarize the content of available weight control apps. Information on content, user rating, and price was extracted from iTunes on September 25, 2009. Apps (n = 204) were coded for adherence to 13 evidence-informed practices for weight control. Latent class analysis was used to identify subgroups of apps based on endorsement practices. Only a small percentage of apps had five or more of the 13 practices (15%). Latent class analysis revealed three main types of apps: diet, physical activity, and weight journals (19%); dietary advice and journals (34%); and weight trackers (46%). User ratings were not associated with apps from these three classes. Many apps have insufficient evidence-informed content. Research is needed that seeks to develop, improve, and evaluate these apps.