Abstract Background Mobile health applications (MHAs) represent a promising low-threshold tool to support obesity treatment. While commercially available MHAs may be most accessible to potential users, concerns exist regarding their quality, data protection, and evidence base. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically identify and evaluate these aspects. Methods A systematic search was conducted in the Apple App Store and Google Play Store, identifying 1220 apps. After a two-stage screening process, n = 21 MHAs met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated independently by two raters using the German version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS-G) with the five subscales Engagement, Functionality, Esthetics, Information, and Therapeutic Gain. Additionally, data on general characteristics (including information on the age group targeted and data protection and safety measures), inclusion of established treatment components, and evidence base, were collected. Results None of the included MHAs explicitly targeted children or adolescents. Concerning privacy and safety, notable deficiencies were identified, particularly with regard to the absence of active confirmation of privacy policy and/or terms of service and a lack of integrated emergency features. Included MHAs demonstrated moderate overall quality ( M = 3.31, SD = 0.50). The lowest ratings were observed on the subscales Information ( M = 2.74, SD = 0.65) and Therapeutic Gain ( M = 2.39, SD = 0.70). Inclusion of all components of evidence-based obesity treatment guidelines was found in only n = 5 MHAs (23.8%). Published evidence for effectiveness was identified for only n = 2 MHAs (9.5%). Conclusions The findings indicate a moderate quality level of commercially available MHAs for obesity treatment, with significant deficits in data protection and safety, content, therapeutic value, inclusion of established treatment components, and scientific evidence. To support safe and effective care for those affected by obesity, there is a need for further research and joint efforts (e.g., in terms of translation into routine practice).
Steubl et al. (Tue,) studied this question.