| Literature DB >> 35725407 |
Rina Agustina1,2, Eka Febriyanti3,4, Melyarna Putri3, Meriza Martineta3,5, Novi S Hardiany6, Dyah E Mustikawati7, Hanifa Hanifa8, Anuraj H Shankar9,10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobile applications such as personalized tracking tools and food choice aids may enhance weight loss programs. We developed and assessed client preferences for the content, user interface, graphics, and logic flow of a mobile application, and evaluated its validity for tracking compliance with weight control and making healthy and sustainable food choices.Entities:
Keywords: Balanced diet; Formative research; Jakarta; Mobile apps; Sustainable diet; User acceptance test
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35725407 PMCID: PMC9208233 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-13579-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 4.135
Key points from the literature review on the management of obesity and targeted weight loss
| Author | Design | Results |
|---|---|---|
| Garvey WT et al., 2016 [ | AACE/ACE Guidelines | Obesity management consisted of restriction of calories, lifestyle/behavioral therapy, pharmacotherapy, and surgery |
| Pagoto et al., 2013 [ | Cross sectional | A weight loss mobile app with behavioral strategies was an effective, evidence-based weight loss intervention |
| Gilliland et al., 2015 [ | RCT | A smart appetite app was effective in improving the awareness and consumption of healthy foods |
| Lin L et al., 2015 [ | Literature review | The human-chatbot interaction enhanced the process of data collection |
| Geethanjali et al., 2017 [ | Systematic review | Chatbot development was still in its infancy and many techniques are yet to be discovered |
| Harray et al., 2015 [ | RCT | Using mobile food records to assess dietary adherence is a novel and innovative approach |
| Schoenaker DA et al., 2016 [ | Systematic review | The recommended balanced diet limited to the saturated fats and cholesterol consumptions |
| Kramer et al., 2017 [ | Cross Sectional | Reducing meat consumption was effective in reducing the dietary environmental impact |
RCT randomized clinical trial
Acceptance of the mobile application by adults in Jakarta (n = 53)
| Parameters | Good | Moderate | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Content | |||
| Understanding of information | 38 (72) | 15 (28) | 0 (0) |
| Understanding of terminology | 30 (57) | 22 (42) | 1 (2) |
| Appropriate food pictures | 38 (72) | 14 (26) | 1 (2) |
| Appropriate information | 40 (75) | 13 (25) | 0 (0) |
| Ability to monitor the goal | 36 (68) | 16 (30) | 1 (2) |
| Know caloric intake and the composition | 42 (79) | 11 (21) | 0 (0) |
| Know nutrition facts | 42 (79) | 11 (21) | 0 (0) |
| Easy to follow the menu recommendations | 33 (62) | 19 (36) | 1 (2) |
| Can communicate with a doctor | 37 (70) | 16 (30) | 0 (0) |
| Useful reminders | 44 (83) | 8 (15) | 1 (2) |
| Useful information | 41 (77) | 11 (21) | 1 (2) |
| Graphics | |||
| Attractive color combination | 40 (75) | 13 (25) | 0 (0) |
| Appropriate font size | 44 (83) | 9 (17) | 0 (0) |
| Attractive appearance | 41 (77) | 12 (23) | 0 (0) |
| App flow | |||
| Understanding of commands | 41 (77) | 12 (23) | 0 (0) |
| Easy to input food and beverages | 43 (81) | 9 (17) | 1 (2) |
| Easy to track the caloric intake and its composition | 46 (87) | 7 (13) | 0 (0) |
Characteristics of subjects in the formative research, acceptance, and validity testing stages of the application
| Variables | Formative research | Acceptance test | Validity test |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex, n (%) | |||
| Male | 30 (77) | 19 (36) | 0 (0) |
| Female | 9 (23) | 34 (64) | 30 (100) |
| Age (years), n (%) | 33.5 ± 10.0 | ||
| 19–30 | 19 (49) | 41 (77) | |
| 31–64 | 20 (51) | 12 (23) | |
| Occupation, n (%) | |||
| Employee | 41 (77) | 10 (33.3) | |
| Non-employee | 12 (23) | 20 (66.6) | |
| Education level, n (%) | |||
| Senior secondary school | 6 (20.0) | ||
| Graduate | 24 (80.0) | ||
| Months of owning an Android smartphone, n (%) | |||
| < 6 | 0 (0) | ||
| ≥ 6 | 30 (100) | ||
| Anthropometric assessment, m ± SD | |||
| Height (cm) | 154 ± 3.7 | ||
| Weight (kg) | 71.8 ± 9.8 | ||
| BMI (kg/m2) | 30.2 ± 3.8 | ||
| Nutritional status, n (%) | |||
| Obesity I | 14 (46.7) | ||
| Obesity II | 16 (53.3) | ||
BMI Body mass index
Topics and statements based on a matrix analysis of the focus group discussions among Indonesian adults
| Topic | Statement or Quotation from the adults |
|---|---|
| Understanding balanced and sustainable diets | A balanced diet is classified as ' |
| Practicing a balanced and sustainable diet | Not yet, just planned but not realized |
| Understanding of food records | Do not know about it |
| Easy, daily food records | Easy but troublesome |
| Keeping a food record with paper-based, web-based, or mobile apps | Preferably using mobile apps because they are easy to use, efficient, and can be taken anywhere |
| Using previous dietary mobile apps | Knowledge of them without using them |
| Helpful features | Monitoring calorie intake and food composition, nutrition facts, menu recommendations, and energy expenditure from physical activity |
| Level of boredom using a dietary mobile app | It depends on features and input frequency |
| Expectations of a mobile app | Easy to use, simple, attractive, informative, and user-friendly |
Fig. 1The proportion of rankings of statements from the subjects (n = 53)
Fig. 2Agreement between methods (apps versus paper-based calculation) for energy intake using the Bland–Altman plot A. Without excluding outliers (n = 30) and B. After excluding outliers (n = 28); LoA, limit of agreement