NUTRITION APPS ON FOCUS: A QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT / ERNÄHRUNGS-APPS IM FOKUS: EINE QUALITÄTSBEWERTUNG

Birgit M. Kaiser, Tamara Stelzl, Kurt Gedrich

Abstract


The quality of nutrition apps can be evaluated by applying scientifically validated instruments. The objective of this study was to perform an in-depth quality-analysis of nutrition-related apps and to identify communalities and limitations of different assessment tools. Based on a keyword search for “nutrition” within the German Google Play Store, ten nutrition-related apps were selected and evaluated for quality using the App Quality Evaluation (AQEL), Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and “ENLIGHT” tools. The analyses highlighted discrepancies in app qualities regarding performance, credibility, security and user benefits. Given the three evaluation tools, each of which focuses on different aspects of quality, they cover a broad spectrum of quality criteria is covered. However, there are also overlaps in the evaluation categories function and functionality, credibility and evidence-base. Due to distinct scoring systems within the tools, overlapping categories were not interchangeable and aggravated a comprehensive app quality rating. Our findings indicate that AQEL, MARS and ENLIGHT, on a stand-alone basis, are suitable tools to assess individual aspects of quality for nutrition apps, without being exhaustive. A series of additional important quality aspects was identified, which can make an important contribution towards the development of an overarching quality assessment tool specific for nutrition apps.

 

Die Qualität von Ernährungs-Apps kann durch die Anwendung wissenschaftlich validierter Instrumente evaluiert werden. Ziel dieser Studie war es, eine detaillierte Qualitätsanalyse ernährungsbezogener Applikationen durchzuführen und Gemeinsamkeiten und Limitationen verschiedener Bewertungstools zu identifizieren. Basierend auf einer Schlagwortsuche zu „nutrition“ innerhalb des deutschen Google Play Stores wurden zehn ernährungsbezogene Apps ausgewählt und hinsichtlich ihrer Qualität bewertet. Hierzu wurden die App Quality Evaluation (AQEL), Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) und “ENLIGHT” Instrumente eingesetzt. Die Analyse verdeutlicht die Diskrepanzen bezüglich der App Qualität hinsichtlich Performanz, Glaubwürdigkeit, Sicherheit und Nutzervorteile. Die hierzu verwendeten Evaluationsinstrumente fokussieren sich auf unterschiedliche Qualitätsaspekte und decken ein breites Spektrum an Qualitätskriterien ab. Überschneidungen existieren hinsichtlich der Evaluationskategorien Funktion und Funktionalität, Glaubwürdigkeit und Evidenzbasierung. Aufgrund der abweichenden Bewertungssysteme ist es nicht möglich gleiche Kategorien auszutauschen, welches eine allumfassende App-Qualitätsbewertung erschwert. Unsere Ergebnisse weisen darauf hin, dass AQEL, MARS und ENLIGHT individuell betrachtet, geeignete Instrumente zum Erfassen einzelner Qualitätsaspekte von Ernährungs-Apps darstellen, jedoch nicht allumfassend sind. Ergänzend wurden weitere wichtige Qualitätsaspekte identifiziert, die einen bedeutsamen Beitrag zur Entwicklung eines allumfassenden Qualitätsinstruments zur Bewertung von Ernährungs-Apps liefern könnten.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter


Keywords


nutrition apps, quality testing, evaluation tools / Ernährungs-Apps, Qualitätsbewertung, Evaluationsinstrumente

Full Text:

PDF

References


Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail, 2017. Ciqual – French food composition table. Retrieved from https://ciqual.anses.fr/. Accessed 12 February 2020

Allen JK, Stephens J, Dennison Himmelfarb CR., Stewart KJ, Hauck S, 2013. Randomized controlled pilot study testing use of smartphone technology for obesity treatment. Journal of Obesity 151597. doi: 10.1155/2013/151597

Armstrong S, 2015. Which app should I use? British Medical Journal 351: h4597. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h4597

Baumel A, Faber K, Mathur N, Kane JM, Muench F, 2017. Enlight: A comprehensive quality and therapeutic potential evaluation tool for mobile and web-based eHealth interventions. Journal of Medical Internet Research 19(3): e82. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7270

Berufsverband Deutscher Psychologinnen und Psychologen (BDP). (2020). Gütesiegel „Geprüfte Psychologische Online-Intervention“ und "Geprüfte Psychologische App". Retrieved from https://www.bdp-verband.de/profession/zertifizierungen/guetesiegel-gepruefte-psychologische-online-intervention.html. Accessed 24 February 2020

Bergman B, Klefsjö B, 2010. Quality from customer needs to customer satisfaction. Lund, SE: McGraw-Hill College. (3rd ed.). Lund, SE: Studentliteratur.

Bundesverband Internetmedizin (BiM), 2020. Grundlagen des Siegels. Retrieved from https://bundesverbandinternetmedizin.de/. Accessed 24 February 2020

CheckYourApp, 2020. Testverfahren. https://www.checkyourapp.de. Accessed 20 February 2020

Comscore, 2020. Global Digital Future in Focus 2018. https://www.comscore.com. Accessed 20 February 2020

Council of the European Union, 2017. Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC. http://data.europe.eu/eli/reg/ 2017/745/oj. Accessed 13 February 2020

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung e.V. (DGE), 2020. Referenzwerte für die Nährstoffzufuhr [reference values for nutrient intake]. Retrieved from https://www.dge.de. Accessed 12 February 2020

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung, Österreichische Gesellschaft für Ernährung, Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Ernährungsforschung, Schweizerische Vereinigung für Ernährung (Eds.), 2019. D-A-C-H Referenzwerte für die Nährstoffzufuhr (2nd ed., 5th update). Bonn, DE: Umschau/Braus Verlag.

DiFilippo KN, Huang W, Chapman-Novakofski KM, 2017. A new tool for nutrition app quality evaluation (AQEL): Development, validation, and reliability testing. Journal of Medical Internet Research mHealth and Uhealth 5(10): e163. doi:10.2196/mhealth.7441

Dolan B, 2013. Happtique suspends mobile health app certification program. Retrieved from https://www.mobihealthnews.com/28165/happtique-suspends-mobile-health-app-certification-program. Accessed 24 February 2020

Flaherty SJ, McCarthy M, Collins A, McAuliffe F, 2018. Can existing mobile apps support healthier food purchasing behaviour? Content analysis of nutrition content, behaviour change theory and user quality integration. Public Health Nutrition 21(2): 288–298. doi: 10.1017/S1368980017002889

Garvin DA, 1984. What does product quality really mean? MIT Sloan Management Review 26(1): 25–43.

GSM Association, 2020. The Mobile Economy. Retrieved from https://www.gsma.com/. Accessed 10 February 2020

Hartman SJ, Nelson SH, Cadmus-Bertram LA, Patterson RE, Parker BA, Pierce JP, 2016. Technology- and phone-based weight loss intervention: Pilot RCT in women at elevated breast cancer risk. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 51(5): 714–721. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.06.024

HealthOn e.V., 2020a. Health App-Dashboard (status as of June 6, 2019). Retrieved from https://www.healthon.de/healthon-statistiken. Accessed 13 February 2020

HealthOn e.V., 2020b. HealthOn-App Ehrenkodex für Gesundheits-Apps. Retrieved from https://www.healthon.de/ehrenkodex. Accessed 13 February 2020

Institute of Medicine, 2005. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10490

Karagkiozidou M, Ziakis C, Vlachopoulou M, Kyrkoudis T, 2019. App Store Optimization Factors for Effective Mobile App Ranking. In A. Kavoura, E. Kefallonitis & A. Giovanis (Eds.), Strategic Innovative Marketing and Tourism. Athenian Riviera, GR: Springer, pp 479-486. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-12453-3_54

Koptyug E, 2019. Daily internet usage time in Germany 2000 to 2018. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/380483/daily-internet-usage-germany/. Accessed 20 February 2020

Laing BY, Mangione CM, Tseng CH, Leng M, Vaisberg E, Mahida M, Bholat M, Glazier E, Morisky DE, Bell DS, 2014. Effectiveness of a smartphone application for weight loss compared with usual care in overweight primary care patients: A randomized, controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine 161(10 Suppl): 5–12. doi: 10.7326/M13-3005

National Health Service (NHS), 2020. NHS Apps Library. Retrieved from https://www.nhs.uk. Accessed 13 February 2020

Organisation for the Review of Care and Health Applications (ORCHA), 2020. Your Health App Finder. Retrieved from https://appfinder.orcha.co.uk. Accessed 20 February 2020

Roza AM, Shizgal HM, 1984. The Harris Benedict equation reevaluated: resting energy requirements and the body cell mass. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 40(1): 168–182. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/40.1.168

Singh K, Drouin K, Newmark LP, Lee J, Faxvaag A, Rozenblum R, Pabo EA, Landman A, Klinger E, Bates DW, 2016. Many mobile health apps target high-need, high-cost populations, but gaps remain. Health Affairs 35: 2310–2318. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0578

Statistisches Bundesamt Destatis, 2020. Pressemitteilung Nr. 330 vom 5. September 2018 [News release 330, September 5, 2018]. Retrieved from https://www.destatis.de. Accessed 24 February 2020

Stoyanov SR, Hides L, Kavanagh DJ, Zelenko O, Tjondronegoro D, Mani M, 2015. Mobile App Rating Scale: a new tool for assessing the quality of health mobile apps. Journal of Medical Internet Research mHealth and Uhealth 3: E27. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.3422

Temple NJ, 2020. Wikipedia articles on nutrition: Are they accurate and complete? Current Nutrition & Food Science 16(2): 237-240. doi: 10.2174/1573401314666180327095119

The Korean Nutrition Society, 2010. Korean Dietary Reference Intakes. Retrieved from http://kns.or.kr/English/index.asp. Accessed 13 February 2020

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2020. Food Data Central. Retrieved from https://www.usda.gov. Accessed 13 February 2020

Von Abams K, 2019. Germany Time spent with media 2019. Retrieved from https://www.emarketer.com/content/germany-time-spent-with-media-2019. Accessed 20 February 2020

Zentrum für Telematik und Telemedizin GmbH (ZTG), 2020. AppCheck. Retrieved from https://appcheck.de. Accessed 23 February 2020




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejphs.v3i1.67

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 Birgit M. Kaiser, Tamara Stelzl, Kurt Gedrich

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015 - 2019. European Journal of Public Health Studies (ISSN 2668-1056/ISSN-L 2668-1056) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library. All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and standards formulated by Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing (2003) and Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003) and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Copyrights of the published research works are retained by authors.