MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003226395 · doi:10.2196/16931

Mobile Apps for Health Behavior Change: Protocol for a Systematic Review

2019· review· en· W3003226395 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Madison Milne‐Ives, Ching Lam, Michelle Helena van Velthoven, Edward Meinert

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEIT Health
KeywordsProtocol (science)Mobile appsComputer sciencemHealthMobile deviceBehavior changeInternet privacyPsychologyMedicineWorld Wide WebPsychological interventionNursingAlternative medicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The popularity and ubiquity of mobile apps have rapidly expanded in the past decade. With a growing focus on patient interaction with health management, mobile apps are increasingly used to monitor health and deliver behavioral interventions. The considerable variation in these mobile health apps, from their target patient group to their health behavior, and their behavioral change strategy, has resulted in a large but incohesive body of literature. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this protocol is to provide an overview of the current landscape, theories behind, and effectiveness of mobile apps for health behavior change. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols will be used to structure this protocol. The focus of the systematic review is guided by a population, intervention, comparator, and outcome framework. A systematic search of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science will be conducted. Two authors will independently screen the titles and abstracts of identified references and select studies according to the eligibility criteria. Any discrepancies will then be discussed and resolved. One reviewer will extract data into a standardized form, which will be validated by a second reviewer. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool, and a descriptive analysis will summarize the effectiveness of all the apps. RESULTS: As of November 2019, the systematic review has been completed and is in peer review for publication. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review will summarize the current mobile app technologies and their effectiveness, usability, and coherence with behavior change theory. It will identify areas of improvement (where there is no evidence of efficacy) and help inform the development of more useful and engaging mobile health apps. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019155604; https://tinyurl.com/sno4lcu. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/16931.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.085
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.128
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0850.128
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.018
Bibliometrics0.0110.013
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0080.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1100.017

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.

Opus teacher head0.805
GPT teacher head0.781
Teacher spread0.024 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207