Nutrition apps: Quality and limitations

Peer-Reviewed | Manuscript received: May 30, 2016 | Revision accepted: January 16, 2017

An explorative investigation on the basis of selected apps

Background

Modern nutrition communication

According to statistics from 2015, 63% of people over the age of 14 in Germany use a smart phone, and that number is rising [1]. This goes hand in hand with an increasing selection of mobile applications (apps) that provide health information [2]. There is a growing number of health apps, particularly nutrition apps, which are reaching more and more people with a new kind of nutrition communication. Across the globe, the app stores iTunes (Apple) and Google Play offer roughly 4 million apps, of which about 3% address the topic of “health and fitness” [3].

Nutrition apps can be categorized as “health and fitness” apps or as “medical” apps in terms of their content. Apps such as EateryApp, MyMeal-Mate, MyFitness-Pal, and FatSecret sound promising, and with functions like “calorie counting” and keeping food diaries, they can be used as supportive tools in nutritional therapy. There are, however, relevant limitations, such as the inclusion of unverified information and open questions regarding data protection.

In Germany, there are currently very few standardized criteria for the evaluation and certification of apps. Therefore the credibility of many nutrition apps in terms of, for instance, missing information about data sources and providers, must be critically examined. A study published by the Bertelsmann foundation describes the app market as being intransparent and considers the market development to be highly supply-oriented rather than needs-oriented [4]. Nevertheless, the use of apps, particularly in the context of food and nutrition, is extremely popular, since they are quick and easy to use and ubiquitarily available. Many apps are available free of charge, which makes them even more attractive.

Full text PDF (free access)