9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      review-article
      , MSc, RDN, LD 1 , , PhD, RDN, LD 1 , , , PhD 2 , , PhD, RDN, LD 1
      (Reviewer), (Reviewer), (Reviewer)
      JMIR mHealth and uHealth
      JMIR Publications
      mobile apps, apps, mobile health, mHealth, eHealth, nutrition education, cancer, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, mobile phone

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references101

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions.

              Without standardized definitions of the techniques included in behavior change interventions, it is difficult to faithfully replicate effective interventions and challenging to identify techniques contributing to effectiveness across interventions. This research aimed to develop and test a theory-linked taxonomy of generally applicable behavior change techniques (BCTs). Twenty-six BCTs were defined. Two psychologists used a 5-page coding manual to independently judge the presence or absence of each technique in published intervention descriptions and in intervention manuals. Three systematic reviews yielded 195 published descriptions. Across 78 reliability tests (i.e., 26 techniques applied to 3 reviews), the average kappa per technique was 0.79, with 93% of judgments being agreements. Interventions were found to vary widely in the range and type of techniques used, even when targeting the same behavior among similar participants. The average agreement for intervention manuals was 85%, and a comparison of BCTs identified in 13 manuals and 13 published articles describing the same interventions generated a technique correspondence rate of 74%, with most mismatches (73%) arising from identification of a technique in the manual but not in the article. These findings demonstrate the feasibility of developing standardized definitions of BCTs included in behavioral interventions and highlight problematic variability in the reporting of intervention content.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
                JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
                JMU
                JMIR mHealth and uHealth
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                2291-5222
                2023
                13 January 2023
                : 11
                : e41235
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Nutritional Sciences Texas Tech University Lubbock, TX United States
                [2 ] Department of Hospitality & Retail Management Texas Tech University Lubbock, TX United States
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Shannon Galyean shannon.galyean@ 123456ttu.edu
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4192-1415
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9757-0039
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5394-7650
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7831-1760
                Article
                v11i1e41235
                10.2196/41235
                9883741
                36637888
                df4ce143-20de-436b-af43-958f09fdeae2
                ©Emily Salas-Groves, Shannon Galyean, Michelle Alcorn, Allison Childress. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (https://mhealth.jmir.org), 13.01.2023.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 19 July 2022
                : 30 September 2022
                : 15 November 2022
                : 30 November 2022
                Categories
                Review
                Review

                mobile apps,apps,mobile health,mhealth,ehealth,nutrition education,cancer,obesity,diabetes,cardiovascular disease,mobile phone

                Comments

                Comment on this article