4.1 Review

A review of pregnancy apps freely available in the Google Play Store

期刊

HEALTH PROMOTION JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 340-342

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hpja.270

关键词

health behaviours; health education; information and communication technology; nutrition; pregnancy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Issue addressed Smartphone apps have emerged as a mode for provision of information to women during pregnancy. More apps are available for pregnancy than for any other medical topic. This review aimed to assess the quality of Android pregnancy apps, including pregnancy-specific nutrition information. Methods A keyword search was conducted in the Google Play Store followed by the screening of app title, app store description and the downloaded app. To be included, apps needed to be free, in English, aimed at pregnant women and contain nutrition information. App quality was assessed using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) and the presence of nutrition topics was reported. Results A total of 76 apps were included in the analysis. Mean overallMARSquality score was 3.52 (max 5;SD: 0.58) (1 = inadequate and 5 = excellent). Thefunctionalitysubscale scored the highest (mean 4.06) andinformationscored the lowest (mean 3.23). The median number of pregnancy-specific nutrition topics per app was four (range: 0-6), with the most common related to caffeine consumption (n = 55, 72% of apps) and fish intake (n = 53, 69%), although the quality and quantity of nutrition information varied greatly between apps. Conclusions Although there are a large number of pregnancy apps available, few are of high quality and most contain only a small number of pregnancy-focused nutrition topics. It is important to be aware of the limitations of current apps in providing dietary advice during this key life stage. So what? The current review does not support the use of freely available android apps currently on the market as an appropriate nutrition resource for pregnant women.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据