SynthesisJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020
Mobile Phone Apps in Australia for Improving Pregnancy Outcomes: Systematic Search on App Stores.
Synthesis in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding Inequalities in Mobile Health Utilization Across Phases: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of a Mobile App (KhunLook) Versus the Maternal and Child Health Handbook on Thai Parents' Health Literacy, Accuracy of Health Assessments, and Convenience of Use: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Trial
- Chinese Mobile Health Apps for Preventing and Managing Pelvic Floor Dysfunction: Quality Assessment and Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Mobile Apps and Websites With Breastfeeding-Related Content in Germany: Cross-Sectional and Evaluation Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2026Article
- Use of digital platforms and social media as a source of information on children's oral health by parents: a cross-sectional survey analysis in a Spanish sample.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Comments: "Are smartphones a tool to cope with the fear of childbirth? The correlation between the fear of loss of connection and the fear of childbirth".Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Feasibility of the breastfeeding peer support application-perspectives of peer supporters and breastfeeding mothers.International breastfeeding journal · 2025Article
- User Satisfaction With Pregnancy Management Apps in Mainland China: User-Generated Content Analysis and Text Mining Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Mobile Phone Apps for Child Mental Health: Comprehensive Review and Content Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Review
- Evaluating the Quality, Content Accuracy, and User Suitability of mHealth Prenatal Care Apps for Expectant Mothers: Critical Assessment Study.Asian/Pacific Island nursing journal · 2025Article
- Dropping out of a peripartum depression mHealth study: participants' motives and suggestions for improvement.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Smartphone pregnancy apps: systematic analysis of features, scientific guidance, commercialization, and user perception.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- A Reflective Thematic Analysis Into the Perceptions of Pregnant Radiographers Regarding the Usefulness of the PregiDose Mobile App to Enhance Fetal Dosimetry and Well-Being: Qualitative Exploration.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Content, Behaviour Change Techniques, and Quality of Postpartum Depression Apps to Be Recommended by Midwives: Systematic Search and Evaluation.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2024Article
- Breastfeeding - a survey of fathers' support needs and preferred sources of information.International breastfeeding journal · 2024Article
- Understanding and Involving the Perspective of Pregnant Women as Users When Designing the Framework of e-Health and Exercise Interventions during Pregnancy: Preliminary Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Quality Assessment of Smartphone Medication Management Apps in France: Systematic Search.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Article
- Quality assessment of mobile applications on postpartum hemorrhage management.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2024Article
- Are smartphones a tool to cope with the fear of childbirth? The correlation between the fear of loss of connection and the fear of childbirth.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2024Article
- App-Supported Lifestyle Interventions in Pregnancy to Manage Gestational Weight Gain and Prevent Gestational Diabetes: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWomen are increasingly turning to mobile health platforms to receive health information and support in pregnancy, yet the content of these platforms vary. Although there is great potential to influence health behaviors, little research has assessed the quality of these platforms or their ability to change behavior. In recent years, validated tools to assess app quality have become available.
objectiveTo identify and assess the quality and ongoing popularity of the top 10 freely available pregnancy apps in Australia using validated tools.
methodsA systematic search on app stores to identify apps was performed. A Google Play search used subject terms pregnancy, parenting, and childbirth; the iTunes search used alternative categories medical and health and fitness. The top 250 apps from each store were cross-referenced, and the top 100 found in both Google Play and iTunes were screened for eligibility. Apps that provided health information or advice for pregnancy were included. Excluded apps focused on nonhealth information (eg, baby names). The top 10 pregnancy apps were assessed using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). A comparative analysis was conducted at 2 time points over 2 years to assess the ongoing popularity of the apps. The MARS score was compared to the download and star rating data collected from iTunes and Google Play in 2017 and 2019. Health behaviors including breastfeeding, healthy pregnancy weight, and maternal awareness of fetal movements were reviewed for apparent impact on the user's knowledge, attitudes, and behavior change intentions using the MARS perceived impact section and the Coventry, Aberdeen, and London-Refined (CALO-RE) taxonomy.
resultsA total of 2052 free apps were screened for eligibility, 1397 were excluded, and 655 were reviewed and scored. The top 10 apps were selected using download numbers and star ratings. All 10 apps were suboptimal in quality, practicality, and functionality. It was not possible to identify a primary purpose for all apps, and there was overlap in purpose for many. The mean overall MARS app quality score across all 10 apps was 3.01 (range 1.97-4.40) in 2017 and 3.40 (range 2.27-4.44) in 2019. A minority of apps scored well for perceived impact on health behavior using the MARS tool. Using the CALO-RE 40 item taxonomy, the number of behavior change techniques used was low. The mean number of behavior change techniques for breastfeeding was 5 (range 2-11), for pregnancy weight was 4 (range 2-12), and for maternal awareness of fetal movements was 5 (range 2-8).
conclusionsThis review provides valuable information to clinicians and consumers about the quality of apps currently available for pregnancy in Australia. Consideration is needed regarding the regulation of information and the potential opportunity to incorporate behavior change techniques to improve maternal and fetal outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.