The Effectiveness of Combining Nonmobile Interventions With the Use of Smartphone Apps With Various Features for Weight Loss: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The effectiveness of smartphone apps for weight loss is limited by the diversity of interventions that accompany such apps. This research extends the scope of previous systematic reviews by including 2 subgroup analyses based on nonmobile interventions that accompanied smartphone use and human-based versus passive behavioral interventions. Objective The primary objective of this study is to systematically review and perform a meta-analysis of studies that evaluated the effectiveness of smartphone apps on weight loss in the context of other interventions combined with app use. The secondary objective is to measure the impact of different mobile app features on weight loss and mobile app adherence. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant studies after an extensive search of the PubMed, MEDLINE, and EBSCO databases from inception to January 31, 2022. Gray literature, such as abstracts and conference proceedings, was included. Working independently, 2 investigators extracted the data from the articles, resolving disagreements by consensus. All randomized controlled trials that used smartphone apps in at least 1 arm for weight loss were included. The weight loss outcome was the change in weight from baseline to the 3- and 6-month periods for each arm. Net change estimates were pooled across the studies using random-effects models to compare the intervention group with the control group. The risk of bias was assessed independently by 2 authors using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials. Results Overall, 34 studies were included that evaluated the use of a smartphone app in at least 1 arm. Compared with controls, the use of a smartphone app–based intervention showed a significant weight loss of –1.99 kg (95% CI –2.19 to –1.79 kg; I2=81%) at 3 months and –2.80 kg (95% CI –3.03 to –2.56 kg; I2=91%) at 6 months. In the subgroup analysis, based on the various intervention components that were added to the mobile app, the combination of the mobile app, tracker, and behavioral interventions showed a statistically significant weight loss of –2.09 kg (95% CI –2.32 to –1.86 kg; I2=91%) and –3.77 kg (95% CI –4.05 to –3.49 kg; I2=90%) at 3 and 6 months, respectively. When a behavioral intervention was present, only the combination of the mobile app with intensive behavior coaching or feedback by a human coach showed a statistically significant weight loss of –2.03 kg (95% CI –2.80 to –1.26 kg; I2=83%) and –2.63 kg (95% CI –2.97 to –2.29 kg; I2=91%) at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Neither the type nor the number of mobile app features was associated with weight loss. Conclusions Smartphone apps have a role in weight loss management. Nevertheless, the human-based behavioral component remained key to higher weight loss results.
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 | 0.027 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.030 | 0.060 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".