Parenting apps review: in search of good quality apps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parenting can be challenging, and in this digital age, first-time parents actively access mobile applications or "apps" to adjust to their new roles. Apps are now technologically-savvy parents' go-to tool for accessing information, tracking their babies' development, editing and sharing photos, and much more. While apps have the potential to make parenting easier, the abundance of low-quality apps makes the process of finding a reliable one arduous for parents. Therefore, the objective of this app review paper was to provide a list of quality parenting apps that parents can use. METHODS: The Google Play Store was searched on June 1st, 2018 for available parenting apps using 18 search terms: mum, mom, mommy, mama, mother, father, dad, daddy, papa, newborn, baby, infant, kid, child, children, family, parent, and parenting. The eligible apps (n=16) were evaluated on engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information domains using Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). RESULTS: The authors identified 4,300 free apps on the initial search, of which n=16 apps were included in the review. All 16 apps were freely available to the public on Google Play Store. Most apps (n=13) were also available on the iOS platform. All eligible apps had a privacy policy, and half of the apps contained advertisements. Most apps (n=12) were updated within the last year and received 4.5 or above ratings from users. Babybrains app, developed by a neuroscientist, had the lowest number of downloads (one thousand) whereas, BabyCenter, a commercial app, had the highest number of downloads (ten million). A majority of apps (n=11) received MARS scores between 4.2 and 4.4/5, with four apps received highest MARS score of 4.5/5, and one app received the lowest MARS rating of 4/5. CONCLUSIONS: Apps play an increasingly important role in supporting new parents in their first year of parenthood due to convenience and ease of accessibility. Health care professionals are in an ideal position to support technologically savvy parents in locating good quality apps; therefore, they should support the evaluation of existing parenting apps to ensure that the parents are presented with the up to date and best options.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".