Health and Fitness Apps for Hands-Free Voice-Activated Assistants: Content Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Hands-free voice-activated assistants and their associated devices have recently gained popularity with the release of commercial products, including Amazon Alexa and Google Assistant. Voice-activated assistants have many potential use cases in healthcare including education, health tracking and monitoring, and assistance with locating health providers. However, little is known about the types of health and fitness apps available for voice-activated assistants as it is an emerging market. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to examine the characteristics of health and fitness apps for commercially available, hands-free voice-activated assistants, including Amazon Alexa and Google Assistant. METHODS: Amazon Alexa Skills Store and Google Assistant app were searched to find voice-activated assistant apps designated by vendors as health and fitness apps. Information was extracted for each app including name, description, vendor, vendor rating, user reviews and ratings, cost, developer and security policies, and the ability to pair with a smartphone app and website and device. Using a codebook, two reviewers independently coded each app using the vendor's descriptions and the app name into one or more health and fitness, intended age group, and target audience categories. A third reviewer adjudicated coding disagreements until consensus was reached. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize app characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 309 apps were reviewed; health education apps (87) were the most commonly occurring, followed by fitness and training (72), nutrition (33), brain training and games (31), and health monitoring (25). Diet and calorie tracking apps were infrequent. Apps were mostly targeted towards adults and general audiences with few specifically geared towards patients, caregivers, or medical professionals. Most apps were free to enable or use and 18.1% (56/309) could be paired with a smartphone app and website and device; 30.7% (95/309) of vendors provided privacy policies; and 22.3% (69/309) provided terms of use. The majority (36/42, 85.7%) of Amazon Alexa apps were rated by the vendor as mature or guidance suggested, which were geared towards adults only. When there was a user rating available, apps had a wide range of ratings from 1 to 5 stars with a mean of 2.97. Google Assistant apps did not have user reviews available, whereas most of Amazon Alexa apps had at least 1-9 reviews available. CONCLUSIONS: The emerging market of health and fitness apps for voice-activated assistants is still nascent and mainly focused on health education and fitness. Voice-activated assistant apps had a wide range of content areas but many published in the health and fitness categories did not actually have a clear health or fitness focus. This may, in part, be due to Amazon and Google policies, which place restrictions on the delivery of care or direct recording of health data. As in the mobile app market, the content and functionalities may evolve to meet growing demands for self-monitoring and disease management.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».