Quality of Physical Activity Apps: Systematic Search in App Stores and Content Analysis

• Published in: JMIR mHealth and uHealth 2021-06, Vol.9 (6), p.e22587-e22587
• Main Authors: Paganini, Sarah, Terhorst, Yannik, Sander, Lasse Bosse, Catic, Selma, Balci, Sümeyye, Küchler, Ann-Marie, Schultchen, Dana, Plaumann, Katrin, Sturmbauer, Sarah, Krämer, Lena Violetta, Lin, Jiaxi, Wurst, Ramona, Pryss, Rüdiger, Baumeister, Harald, Messner, Eva-Maria
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Behavior; Exercise; Goal setting; Original Paper; Physical fitness; Privacy; Quality control; Ratings & rankings; Usability
• ISSN: 2291-5222; 2291-5222
• DOI: 10.2196/22587

Background: Physical inactivity is a major contributor to the development and persistence of chronic diseases. Mobile health apps that foster physical activity have the potential to assist in behavior change. However, the quality of the mobile health apps available in app stores is hard to assess for making informed decisions by end users and health care providers. Objective: This study aimed at systematically reviewing and analyzing the content and quality of physical activity apps available in the 2 major app stores (Google Play and App Store) by using the German version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS-G). Moreover, the privacy and security measures were assessed. Methods: A web crawler was used to systematically search for apps promoting physical activity in the Google Play store and App Store. Two independent raters used the MARS-G to assess app quality. Further, app characteristics, content and functions, and privacy and security measures were assessed. The correlation between user star ratings and MARS was calculated. Exploratory regression analysis was conducted to determine relevant predictors for the overall quality of physical activity apps. Results: Of the 2231 identified apps, 312 met the inclusion criteria. The results indicated that the overall quality was moderate (mean 3.60 [SD 0.59], range 1-4.75). The scores of the subscales, that is, information (mean 3.24 [SD 0.56], range 1.17-4.4), engagement (mean 3.19 [SD 0.82], range 1.2-5), aesthetics (mean 3.65 [SD 0.79], range 1-5), and functionality (mean 4.35 [SD 0.58], range 1.88-5) were obtained. An efficacy study could not be identified for any of the included apps. The features of data security and privacy were mainly not applied. Average user ratings showed significant small correlations with the MARS ratings (r=0.22, 95% CI 0.08-0.35; P