MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312271453 · doi:10.2196/41235

Behavior Change Effectiveness Using Nutrition Apps in People With Chronic Diseases: Scoping Review

2022· article· en· W4312271453 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emily Salas-Groves, Shannon Galyean, Michelle Alcorn, Allison Childress

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsmHealthMedicinePsychological interventionMEDLINESystematic reviewScopusHealth careeHealthDiseaseIntervention (counseling)Behavior changeDisease managementBehavior change methodsGerontologyFamily medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes mellitus, and obesity are common chronic diseases, and their prevalence is reaching an epidemic level worldwide. As the impact of chronic diseases continues to increase, finding strategies to improve care, access to care, and patient empowerment becomes increasingly essential. Health care providers use mobile health (mHealth) to access clinical information, collaborate with care teams, communicate over long distances with patients, and facilitate real-time monitoring and interventions. However, these apps focus on improving general health care concerns, with limited apps focusing on specific chronic diseases and the nutrition involved in the disease state. Hence, available evidence on the effectiveness of mHealth apps toward behavior change to improve chronic disease outcomes is limited. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review was to provide an overview of behavior change effectiveness using mHealth nutrition interventions in people with chronic diseases (ie, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, cancer, and obesity). We further evaluated the behavior change techniques and theories or models used for behavior change, if any. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted through a systematic literature search in the MEDLINE, EBSCO, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus databases. Studies were excluded from the review if they did not involve an app or nutrition intervention, were written in a language other than English, were duplicates from other database searches, or were literature reviews. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines, the systematic review process included 4 steps: identification of records through the database search, screening of duplicate and excluded records, eligibility assessment of full-text records, and final analysis of included records. RESULTS: In total, 46 studies comprising 256,430 patients were included. There was diversity in the chronic disease state, study design, number of participants, in-app features, behavior change techniques, and behavior models used in the studies. In addition, our review found that less than half (19/46, 41%) of the studies based their nutrition apps on a behavioral theory or its constructs. Of the 46 studies, 11 (24%) measured maintenance of health behavior change, of which 7 (64%) sustained behavior change for approximately 6 to 12 months and 4 (36%) showed a decline in behavior change or discontinued app use. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that mHealth apps involving nutrition can significantly improve health outcomes in people with chronic diseases. Tailoring nutrition apps to specific populations is recommended for effective behavior change and improvement of health outcomes. In addition, some studies (7/46, 15%) showed sustained health behavior change, and some (4/46, 9%) showed a decline in the use of nutrition apps. These results indicate a need for further investigation on the sustainability of the health behavior change effectiveness of disease-specific nutrition apps.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.379 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations55
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207