Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Oct 26;8(10):e19844.
doi: 10.2196/19844.

Weight Management Apps in Saudi Arabia: Evaluation of Features and Quality

Dalal M Alshathri  1 , Abeer S Alhumaimeedy  2 , Ghada Al-Hudhud  3 , Aseel Alsaleh  4 , Sara Al-Musharaf  5 , Ghadeer S Aljuraiban  5
Affiliations

Weight Management Apps in Saudi Arabia: Evaluation of Features and Quality

Dalal M Alshathri et al. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. .

Abstract

Background: Weight management apps may provide support and management options for individuals with overweight and obesity. Research on the quality of weight management mHealth apps among the Saudi population is insufficient despite frequent use.

Objective: The aims of this study were to explore user perceptions of weight management apps, explore reasons for starting and stopping app use, appraise the quality of weight management apps available in the App Store, and compare the features currently available within the app market and those that are most desirable to weight management app users.

Methods: A web-based survey consisted of 31 open and closed questions about sociodemographic information, general health questions, app use, app user perceptions, and discontinuation of app use. The quality of the weight management apps available on the App Store was assessed using the Mobile App Rating Scale and evidence-based strategies. We also used six sigma evaluations to ensure that the quality measured by the tools consistently meets customer expectations.

Results: Data from the survey were analyzed. Of the respondents, 30.17% (324/1074) had used a weight management app, 18.16% (195/1074) used the apps and stopped, and 51.68% (555/1074) had never used a weight management app. Of apps mentioned, 23 met the inclusion criteria. The overall average Mobile App Rating Scale quality of apps was acceptable; 30% (7/23) received a quality mean score of 4 or higher (out of 5), and 30% (7/23) did not meet the acceptability score of 3 or higher. Evidence-based strategy results showed that feedback was not observed in any of the apps, and motivation strategy was observed in only 1 app. The sigma results of evidence-based strategies reflect that most of the apps fail to pass the mean.

Conclusions: App users desired a feature that allows them to communicate with a specialist, which is a missing in the available free apps. Despite the large number and accessibility of weight management apps, the quality and features of most are variable. It can be concluded from six sigma results that passing the mean does not ensure that the quality is consistently distributed through all app quality properties and Mobile App Rating Scale and evidence-based strategies do not give developers an indication of the acceptance of their apps by mobile users. This finding stresses the importance of reevaluating the passing criterion, which is ≥50% for designing an effective app.

Keywords: MARS; eHealth; mHealth; mobile apps; obesity; six sigma; smartphone; weight management.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of app search.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Regression analyses of the association between the star rating in the App Store and the Mobile App Rating Scale score.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Regression analyses of the association between the Mobile App Rating Scale score and the evidence-based strategy criteria.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Katzmarzyk PT, Lear SA. Physical activity for obese individuals: a systematic review of effects on chronic disease risk factors. Obes Rev. 2012 Feb;13(2):95–105. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00933.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC) Worldwide trends in body-mass index, underweight, overweight, and obesity from 1975 to 2016: a pooled analysis of 2416 population-based measurement studies in 128.9 million children, adolescents, and adults. Lancet. 2017 Dec 16;390(10113):2627–2642. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32129-3. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140-6736(17)32129-3 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Memish ZA, El Bcheraoui C, Tuffaha M, Robinson M, Daoud F, Jaber S, Mikhitarian S, Al Saeedi M, AlMazroa MA, Mokdad AH, Al Rabeeah AA. Obesity and associated factors—Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 2013. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014 Oct 09;11:E174. doi: 10.5888/pcd11.140236. https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2014/14_0236.htm - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fennell C, Barkley J, Lepp A. The relationship between cell phone use, physical activity, and sedentary behavior in adults aged 18-80. Comput Human Behav. 2019;90:53–59. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.044. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.044. - DOI - DOI
    1. Annual Report 2016. Communications and Information Technology Commission. 2016. [2019-11-12]. https://www.citc.gov.sa/en/mediacenter/annualreport/Documents/PR_REP_012....

Publication types