Skip to main content

Table 1 Descriptive data for the reviewed apps

From: A review and content analysis of engagement, functionality, aesthetics, information quality, and change techniques in the most popular commercial apps for weight management

  n (%) M (SD) Md (IQR) Range
App basic descriptive information     
 Paid apps on iTunes, and price ($) 6 (26 %) 3.49 (.55) 3.49 (1.0) 2.99–3.99
 Paid apps on GP, and price ($) 5 (22 %) 3.27 (.70) 2.99 (1.0) 2.99–3.99
 Avg. user rating on iTunes (scale: 1–5) 22 (96 %) 4.3 (.6) 4.5 (.5) 2.0–5.0
 Avg. user rating on GP (scale: 1–5) 23 (100 %) 4.1 (.6) 4.2 (.6) 2.4–4.7
 Number of ratings on iTunes (count) 22 (96 %) 23380.7 (92819.4) 1436.5 (5186) 11–438279
 Number of ratings on GP (count) 23 (100 %) 48257.0 (174679.8) 3784 (9037) 31–836597
Number of technical features per app (0–7) 23 (100 %) 4.4 (2.2) 5 (4) 1–12
Presence of technical features     
 Allows behavioural tracking 19 (83 %) - - -
 Manual and semi-automated tracking 9 (82 %) - - -
 Allows sharing 8 (9 %) - - -
 Has app community 14 (15 %) - - -
 Requires login 13 (14 %) - - -
 Password 10 (11 %) - - -
 Works in background 14 (15 %) - - -
 Notifications 18 (20 %) - - -
 Needs internet to work 15 (16 %) - - -
MARS app quality ratings (1–5)     
 Engagement 23 (100 %) 3.0 (.9) 2.8 (1.2) 1.3–5.0
 Functionality 23 (100 %) 3.8 (.9) 4.0 (1.1) 1.8–5.0
 Aesthetics 23 (100 %) 3.4 (1.2) 3.8 (2.7) 1.5–4.8
 Information quality 23 (100 %) 2.2 (.7) 2.0 (1.1) 1.2–4.1
 Total score 23 (100 %) 3.1 (.8) 3.2 (1.4) 1.9–4.6
Number of change techniques 23 (100 %) 9.3 (4.0) 10.0 (6.0) 1.0–17.0
Presence of effective techniques     
 Allows goal setting (GS) only 1 (4 %) - - -
 GS and self-monitoring (SM) 2 (9 %) - - -
 GS, SM and feedback (F) 16 (70 %) - - -
 GS, SM, F and description of behaviour (DB) 2 (9 %) - - -
 SM only 1 (4 %) - - -
 SM and F 1 (4 %) - - -
  1. Notes: GP google play, MARS mobile app rating scale, GS goal setting, SM self-monitoring, F feedback, DB description of behaviour