Planting Seeds for the Future: Scoping Review of Child Health Promotion Apps for Parents

Abstract

Background Increasingly, parents use child health promotion apps to find health information. An overview of child health promotion apps for parents currently does not exist. The scope of child health topics addressed by parent apps is thus needed, including how they are evaluated. Objective This scoping review aims to describe existing reported mobile health (mHealth) parent apps of middle- to high-income countries that promote child health. The focus centers on apps developed in the last 5 years, showing how the reported apps are evaluated, and listing reported outcomes found. Methods A scoping review was conducted according to PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews) guidelines to identify parent apps or web-based programs on child health promotion published between January 2016 and June 2021 in 5 databases: PubMed, ERIC, IEEE Xplore, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Separate sources were sought through an expert network. Included studies were summarized and analyzed through a systematic and descriptive content analysis, including keywords, year of publication, country of origin, aims/purpose, study population/sample size, intervention type, methodology/method(s), broad topic(s), evaluation, and study outcomes. Results In total, 39 studies met the inclusion criteria from 1040 database and 60 expert-identified studies. Keywords reflected the health topics and app foci. About 64% (25/39) of included studies were published after 2019 and most stemmed from the United States, Australian, and European-based research. Studies aimed to review or evaluate apps or conducted app-based study interventions. The number of participants ranged from 7 to 1200. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used. Interventions included 28 primary studies, 6 app feasibility studies, and 5 app or literature reviews. Eight separate topics were found: parental feeding and nutrition, physical activity, maternal-child health, parent-child health, healthy environment, dental health, mental health, and sleep. Study intervention evaluations cited behavior change theories in 26 studies and evaluations were carried out with a variety of topic-specific, adapted, self-developed, or validated questionnaires and evaluation tools. To evaluate apps, user input and qualitative evaluations were often combined with surveys and frequently rated with the Mobile App Rating Scale. Outcomes reported some positive effects, while several intervention studies saw no effect at all. Effectively evaluating changes in behavior through apps, recruiting target groups, and retaining app engagement were challenges cited. Conclusions New parents are a key target group for child health apps, but evaluating child health promotion apps remains a challenge. Whether tailored to parent needs or adapted to the specific topic, apps should be rooted in a transparent theoretical groundwork. Applicable lessons for parent apps from existing research are to tailor app content, include intuitive and adaptive features, and embed well-founded parameters for long-term effect evaluation on child health promotion.

Understanding the bias of mobile location data across spatial scales and over time: A comprehensive analysis of SafeGraph data in the United States

“…Therefore, about 4.9% (6.5%×75%) of the population's devices were excluded. In addition, children <15 compose about 18% of the US population [38]. It is worth noting this issue for a better interpretation of our analysis.…”

Commercially Available Mobile Apps With Family Behavioral Goal Setting and Tracking for Parents: Review and Quality Evaluation

“…Alternatively, apps could be used in coordination with health professionals in various contexts (eg, medical care, nutrition education, behavioral therapy, or personal coaching), such as sharing their app data with the health professional or using an app as part of a larger intervention [ 21 ]. Furthermore, little is known about the evidence base and quality of such existing apps [ 22 , 23 ].…”