Using Mobile Apps to Promote a Healthy Lifestyle Among Adolescents and Students: A Review of the Theoretical Basis and Lessons Learned
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: European adolescents and students tend to have low levels of physical activity and eat unhealthy foods, and the prevalence of overweight and obesity has increased, which poses a public health challenge. Mobile apps play an important role in their daily lives, suggesting their potential to be used in health-promoting strategies. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to explore how mobile apps can contribute to the promotion of healthy nutrition, physical activity, and prevention of overweight in adolescents and students. For the apps identified, the review describes the content, the theoretical mechanisms applied, and lessons learned. METHODS: The databases Scopus, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched for English-language publications from January 2009 to November 2013. Studies were included if (1) the primary component of the intervention involves an app; (2) the intervention targets healthy nutrition, or physical activity, or overweight prevention; and (3) the target group included adolescents or students (aged 12-25 years). RESULTS: A total of 15 studies were included, which describe 12 unique apps. Ten of these apps functioned as monitoring tools for assessing dietary intake or physical activity levels. The other apps used a Web-based platform to challenge users to exercise and to allow users to list and photograph their problem foods. For 5 apps, the behavioral theory underpinning their development was clearly specified. Frequently applied behavior change techniques are prompting self-monitoring of behavior and providing feedback on performance. Apps can function self-contained, but most of them are used as part of therapy or to strengthen school programs. From the age of 10 years users may be capable of using apps. Only 4 apps were developed specifically for adolescents. All apps were tested on a small scale and for a short period. CONCLUSIONS: Despite large potential and abundant usage by young people, limited research is available on apps and health promotion for adolescents. Apps seem to be a promising health promotion strategy as a monitoring tool. Apps can enable users to set targets, enhance self-monitoring, and increase awareness. Three apps incorporated social features, making them "social media," but hardly any evidence appeared available about their potential.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".