What Overweight Women Want From a Weight Loss App: A Qualitative Study on Arabic Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Overweight and obesity are international public health issues. With mobile and app use growing globally, the development of weight loss apps are increasing along with evidence that interventions using technology have been effective in the treatment of obesity. Although studies have been conducted regarding what content health professionals would recommend within weight loss apps, there are limited studies that explore users' viewpoints. There is specifically a paucity of research that takes the cultural background of the user into consideration, especially in Middle Eastern countries where the lives and weight loss intervention needs of women not only vary vastly from the West, but the obesity rate is also increasing exponentially. OBJECTIVE: The current study sought to explore the proposed features of an Arabic weight loss app by seeking the experiences and opinions of overweight and obese Saudi Arabian users in order to design a mobile phone app to fit their needs. METHODS: Focus group discussions were conducted with a purposive sample of volunteer overweight and obese Saudi women (BMI ≥ 25) who were older than 18 years and who owned a mobile phone. The most common Arabic and English weight loss mobile apps were downloaded to initiate dialogue about app usage and to get their opinions on what an ideal weight loss app would look like and the features it would include. All transcribed, translated discussions were thematically analyzed, categorized for each of the main topics of the discussion, and specific quotations were identified. RESULTS: Four focus groups were conducted with a total of 39 participants. Most participants owned an Android mobile phone and only a few participants were aware of the availability of health-related apps. Barriers to weight loss were identified including: motivation, support (social and professional), boring diets, customs, and lifestyle. Diverse themes emerged as suggestions for an ideal weight loss app including: Arabic language and culturally sensitive; motivational support and social networking; dietary and physical activity tools; and a tailorable, user-friendly interface. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies weight loss app features from the users' perspective, which should be considered in the development of a weight loss app for this population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".