MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7165843393 · doi:10.2196/76867

Digital Health Interventions Incorporating Behaviour Change Techniques and Gamification for Bladder Health in Adults Aged 50 and over: A Rapid Review (Preprint)

2025· article· en· W7165843393 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Oscar Aguila-Gimeno, Norina Gasteiger, Emma Stanmore, Marius Brazaitis, Rima Solianik, Erika Karkauskienė, Laura Jarutienė, Júlia Romeu Busquets, Javier Jerez‐Roig

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Journal of Medical Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBehaviour changeDigital healthPsychological interventionmHealthBehavior changeHealth behaviorMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Urinary incontinence (UI) is the most prevalent pelvic floor dysfunction, with incidence increasing with age. Numerous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of pelvic floor exercises in improving UI. However, access to pelvic floor treatment remains limited due to lengthy waiting lists and poor adherence to prescribed exercises. Digital solutions incorporating behavior change techniques (BCTs), including gamification elements, may support self-management of bladder health for individuals aged 50 years and older who may face challenges in accessing conventional treatments. Objective: This study aimed to identify mobile apps and websites integrating BCTs, including gamification elements, to facilitate bladder health self-management among adults aged 50 years and older. Methods: The search was initiated in July 2024 and updated in January 2025 across three sources: (1) mobile app stores (Google Play Store and Apple App Store available in Spain, Lithuania, and the United Kingdom) using the keywords "pelvic floor," "urinary incontinence," and "bladder"; (2) websites; and (3) academic databases (PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and Google Scholar) for journal articles, book chapters, and conference papers published in English, Spanish, or Lithuanian. Inclusion criteria required that solutions be independently usable without health care supervision, incorporate at least one BCT (eg, training, education), be evidence-informed (ie, include participants aged ≥50 years in their design or piloting phase or explicitly target this demographic), and be available in Spain, the United Kingdom, or Lithuania. The Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) was used to assess app quality, and the taxonomy of 93 BCTs was used for BCT classification. All review and data extraction processes were conducted in duplicate. Results: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria, identifying 8 eligible mobile apps and 1 website. Among the apps, only 2 were available on either Google Play or the Apple App Store. No apps were identified in Lithuania, whereas 1 app was found in Spain and 3 apps in the United Kingdom. Of these, 1 UK app was accessible on both Google Play and the Apple App Store, whereas the others were limited to a single platform. BCT extraction showed that the apps included between 9 and 16 BCTs (mean 12, SD 3.27). Regarding quality, all assessed apps obtained MARS scores ranging from 3 to 4 out of 5. Website searches did not identify any scientifically validated platforms across the 3 countries, except for 1 website cited in a scientific publication. UI reduction on the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire ranged from -3.9 to -2.1 points, while perceived improvement reached 91.7% in the Tät app. Conclusions: Evidence-based digital interventions for individuals aged 50 years and older remain limited. Existing apps suggest potential benefits in UI reduction and quality of life improvement; however, further research and development are needed to enhance accessibility and efficacy.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.395 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Journal of Medical ResearchSame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207