Commercially Available Mobile Apps With Family Behavioral Goal Setting and Tracking for Parents: Review and Quality Evaluation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Goal setting and tracking are well established behavior change techniques. Little is known about the extent to which commercially available mobile apps are designed to guide parents in using these strategies, their evidence base, and their quality. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to review commercially available apps that target parents in relation to setting and tracking behavioral goals for their children. The objectives were to classify the apps' general characteristics, features, evidence base, and target behaviors and assess app quality overall and separately for apps that target health-related behaviors (HRBs) and apps without a health-related behavior (WHRB). METHODS: Apps were identified using keyword searches in the Apple App Store and Google Play in the United States. Apps were included if their primary purpose was to assist with setting goals, tracking goals, tracking behaviors, or giving feedback pertaining to goals for children by parents. App characteristics and common features were documented and summarized. Two reviewers assessed app quality using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). Descriptive statistics summarized the MARS total score, 4 quality subscales, and 6 app-specific items that reflect the perceived impact of the app on goal setting and tracking, overall and with subgroup analysis for HRB and WHRB apps. RESULTS: Of the 21 apps identified, 16 (76%) met the review criteria. Overall, 9 apps defined and targeted the following HRBs: nutrition and mealtime (6/16, 38%), physical activity and screen time (5/16, 31%), sleep (7/16, 44%), and personal hygiene (6/16, 38%). Three apps targeted specific age groups (2 apps were for children aged 6-13 years and 1 app was for children aged ≥4 years). None of the apps provided tailored assessments or guidance for goal setting. None of the apps indicated that they were intended for the involvement of a health professional or had been tested for efficacy. The MARS total score indicated moderate app quality overall (mean 3.42, SD 0.49) and ranged from 2.5 to 4.2 out of 5 points. The Habitz app ranked highest on the MARS total score among HRB apps (score=4.2), whereas Thumsters ranked highest (score=3.9) among the WHRB apps. Subgroup analysis revealed a pattern of higher quality ratings in the HRB group than the WHRB group, including the mean MARS total score (mean 3.67, SD 0.34 vs mean 3.09, SD 0.46; P=.02); the engagement and information subscales; and the app-specific items about perceived impact on knowledge, attitudes, and behavior change. CONCLUSIONS: Several high-quality commercially available apps target parents to facilitate goal setting and tracking for child behavior change related to both health and nonhealth behaviors. However, the apps lack evidence of efficacy. Future research should address this gap, particularly targeting parents of young children, and consider individually tailored guided goal setting and involvement of health professionals.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,034 | 0,134 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».