Skip to main content
NCBI home page
JMIR mHealth and uHealth logoLink to JMIR mHealth and uHealth
. 2026 Jan 16;14:e66881. doi: 10.2196/66881

Mobile Apps to Improve Health Parameters in Healthy Adults: Systematic Review

Gaia Leuzzi 1,2, Mirko Job 1, Carola Cosentino 3, Riccardo Testa 4, Aldo Scafoglieri 2, Marco Testa 1,✉
Editor: Alicia Stone
PMCID: PMC12810950  PMID: 41544254

Abstract

Background

Recently, mobile health and mobile apps have been proposed as a potential tool to improve different outcomes (eg, daily steps, blood glucose) in both people with and without chronic conditions. In particular, healthy people could benefit from these tools by improving health variables and for prevention. Previous evidence investigated different types of health interventions adopting apps in various settings and populations, but evidence of their effectiveness is still unclear.

Objective

The aim was to assess the effectiveness of mobile apps in improving health variables (eg, daily steps, maximal aerobic capacity) in healthy adults, involving an intervention regarding physical activity, diet, or their combination thereof. Evidence would suggest if apps could be effectively adopted in health interventions aiming toward prevention.

Methods

A systematic review was performed using Medline via PubMed, Cochrane Library—CENTRAL, and Embase. Only randomized controlled trials comparing the same intervention provided with and without a mobile app or a treatment and a mobile app compared with the treatment only were included in this systematic review. The Risk of Bias tool 2.0 was used to assess the risk of bias, and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was adopted for rating the certainty of evidence.

Results

Considering studies up to June 2025, only 2 studies were included in the review of mobile apps for physical activity, and none were included for mobile apps for diet and none for mobile apps for physical activity and diet combined. The quality of evidence of the 2 studies included was low due to a high risk of bias, several missing data, and deviation from the original interventions, suggesting a scarce rigor in the methodology adopted. Therefore, mobile apps’ effectiveness in improving diet, physical activity, or their combination cannot be assessed.

Conclusions

Despite the widespread use of mobile apps for health and the large number of relative publications, the results of this systematic review did not allow us to ascertain the effectiveness of mobile apps for health, but they provided fundamental insights for future research. Hence, it is not possible to state if apps for health might be used as supporting tools for health interventions aiming toward prevention and health improvements in healthy people. There is an urgent need to develop stronger evidence of apps’ effectiveness in addressing different populations and types of interventions for different health domains.

Introduction

Promoting active aging [1] requires new strategies to reach different populations in a feasible and effective way to help people improve their health status [2,3]. For this reason, the use of technology interventions is getting paramount attention to help people improve their health variables [4], identified as both clinical (eg, blood pressure, weight) and nonclinical outcomes (eg, daily activity or sleep) [5,6]. The attention to the use of technology-supported health interventions is due to the ease of the use of mobile devices, their portability, their quality-price ratio [7], and the quantity of information they can provide with good data storage and live data analysis [8].

The World Health Organization describes this type of app as mobile health app (mHealth), defining it as “medical and public health practices supported by mobile devices, such as mobile phones, patient monitoring devices, personal digital assistants, and other wireless devices” [9]. Wireless devices can be fitness trackers, smartwatches, and smartphones, which makes it easy to collect several types of data (ie, number of daily steps, macronutrients, sleep, and stress level) from different health-related spheres, such as physical activity and diet [10,11], automatically (ie, using a wearable device [12]), through user’s action or both. In particular, to do so, smartphones allow for downloading different types of apps, including health ones. These apps can be focused on just 1 health-related sphere [13,14] or a combination thereof [15].

Due to their easy use and versatility, people with and without diseases can benefit from mHealth apps to prevent or treat different conditions [16,17]. In line with that, different studies have been carried out in the last few years to test the effectiveness of apps for health on people with [18] and without diseases [19]. Unfortunately, the quality of the studies is low, and the results are often controversial [20], thus not allowing for definitive results on this topic. Moreover, to understand the effect of apps for health, one should compare the effectiveness of an intervention provided with and without the adoption of an app, while most of these studies adopt apps as baseline treatment with different interventions as adjunctive therapy, therefore testing the effectiveness of the adjunctive therapy rather than the app one [21,22]. Furthermore, mobile apps were chosen as mHealth to be investigated, as they are one of the most adopted technologies worldwide in health contexts [23], and those targeting fitness, nutrition, and healthy living are widely diffused [24].

Hence, the main purpose of this systematic review is to analyze the effectiveness of mobile apps in improving healthy adults’ (ie, >18 years old) health variables, analyzing only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare the same intervention with and without this technology in physical activity, diet, and a combination thereof.

Methods

The protocol of this systematic review was created and submitted to PROSPERO [25] (CRD42023485803). Furthermore, PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; Checklist 1) [26] guidelines and PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Literature Search Extension; Checklist 2) [27] were followed to report this review.

Deviations from the Protocol

The protocol initially restricted inclusion to English-language studies. During screening, it became clear that this would underrepresent available evidence and introduce potential language bias. We therefore expanded the criteria to include studies in other languages when reliable translation or accurate data extraction was possible. This deviation was made to enhance the review’s completeness and international representativeness, while maintaining all other methodological criteria.

Study Objective

The main objective of this systematic review was to analyze the effectiveness of mobile apps for physical activity and diet to improve healthy adults’ health variables. The research question was as follows: are mobile apps effective in improving health-related variables in healthy adults? To address this topic, three different options were investigated: (1) mobile apps for physical activity, (2) mobile apps for diet, and (3) mobile apps for physical activity and diet. The main outcomes listed hereafter correspond to each of the abovementioned points: (1) physical activity variables (eg, daily steps, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity), (2) diet variables (eg, weight, BMI), and (3) physical activity and diet variables as mentioned above.

Eligibility Criteria

For this systematic review, studies were considered eligible if they were published RCTs. No limitations on publication time were set, and RCTs published online until June 3, 2025, were included. Systematic reviews, reviews, meta-analyses, single-case studies, case series, observational studies, books, documents, guidelines, reports, and conference abstracts were excluded. Gray literature, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were consulted, but not considered eligible, to find useful studies.

We included all those studies that involved healthy adult participants (>18 years old), with no cognitive impairments, musculoskeletal or neuromotor diseases, chronic conditions (eg, diabetes, hypertension), obese (ie, BMI≥30), or pregnant women. Interventions were considered eligible if a mobile app was used as an intervention to improve variables related to physical activity, diet, or their combination or only as a supportive technology to a specific intervention. No limitations on time or sessions of interventions were set. Mobile apps, including automatic or self-reported data collection and the use of a wearable device, were taken into account. Conversely, we excluded interventions with non-standalone apps, using high-cost sensors, exergames, nonmobile monitoring systems, robotics systems, or just clinician’s telemedicine. Moreover, studies that did not precisely describe the health conditions of their population were excluded.

Search Strategy

Three scientific databases were sought for the study research: Medline via PubMed, Cochrane Library—CENTRAL, and Embase. They were chosen as they are reported as mandatory by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [28].

The literature search was performed on the databases up to June 3, 2025, and the results were later merged into a single file to be subsequently uploaded onto Covidence [29], where the automatic duplicate detection was conducted. Specific search strings were created for the 3 databases, mixing Boolean operators (ie, AND, OR), MeSH terms, and keywords. The research strategy is reported below.

  • Mobile apps and physical activity and RCT: ((mHealth) OR (m-health) OR (“mobile health”) OR (“mobile application”) OR (“mobile app”) OR (“smartphone application”) OR (“smartphone app”) OR (apps) OR (smartphone) OR (“Mobile Applications”[Mesh]) OR (“Smartphone”[Mesh])) AND ((fitness) OR (“physical exercise”) OR (“physical fitness”) OR (“fitness behavior”) OR (“Physical Fitness”[Mesh]) OR (“Exercise”[Mesh]) OR (pedometer) OR (steps) OR (exercise) OR (“training exercise”) OR (“heart rate variability”) OR (“Heart rate”) OR (“Heart Rate”[Mesh])) AND ((single blind) OR (double blind) OR (trial) OR (random*) OR (randomized) OR (randomized controlled))

  • Mobile apps and diet and RCT: ((mHealth) OR (m-health) OR (“mobile health”) OR (“mobile application”) OR (“mobile app”) OR (“smartphone application”) OR (“smartphone app”) OR (apps) OR (smartphone) OR (“Mobile Applications”[Mesh]) OR (“Smartphone”[Mesh])) AND ((diet) OR (“calorie counter”) OR (“calorie counting”) OR (calorie) OR (“calorie intake”) OR (diet) OR (“Diet”[Mesh]) OR (dieting) OR (“weight loss”) OR (“weight loss”[Mesh]) OR (“Weight Reduction Programs”[Mesh])) AND ((single blind) OR (double blind) OR (trial) OR (random*) OR (randomized) OR (randomized controlled))

Selection Process

Regarding the first research question, 2 researchers (GL and MJ) manually and independently screened titles and abstracts of the retrieved papers and evaluated them against the inclusion criteria. At the same time, for the second research question, 2 researchers (GL and RT) followed the same procedure. For the third research question, studies were identified among the papers selected by the above-described screening. The eligibility of the studies was then agreed upon through a consensus meeting between the 2 authors of each review and, in case of disagreement, a third researcher (CC) was consulted to reach a final decision. Afterward, the full texts of the selected papers were further screened against the inclusion criteria following the same process.

Data Collection

Two researchers (GL and MJ and GL and RT) proceeded blindly and independently to extract specific data from each study such as authors, year of publication, country, intervention setting, study design, total number of participants, number of participants for each experimental group, mean age of the participants and standard deviation (if available), number of female and male participants, type and timing of intervention sessions for both experimental groups, number and timing of follow-ups, outcomes, key conclusions, and eventually even a researcher’s comment on each study. Moreover, all data available in each study were extracted and reported, such as mean, median, IQR, SD, number of follow-ups, and data registered at each follow-up. In case of missing data, authors were contacted.

Data Items

The most relevant characteristics of the selected studies are summarized in Table 1. According to our research questions, the outcomes of this systematic review are grouped as follows: (1) physical activity outcomes, (2) diet outcomes, and (3) physical activity and diet outcomes. No limits were identified for the reporting of any outcome. In case of missing data, authors were contacted.

Table 1. Study characteristics.

Study characteristics Zongpa et al [30] (2020) Muntaner-Mas et al [31] (2021)
Total number of participants 47 66
App name Take a Walk Vidahora
Type of intervention App+diet indications App
Type of control No app+diet indications No app
Primary outcome VO2 maxa + HRVb + FBGc + adherence Weigh + waist and hip circumference + 20-m shuttle run test + handgrip + standing long jump test + 4 × 10 m shuttle run test + sit and reach + IFISd
Follow-ups Week 4 Week 9
Intervention sessions and duration 6 reminders/day, 1 for every working hour Free
Open in a new tab
a

VO2 max: maximal aerobic capacity.

b

HRV: heart rate variability.

c

FBG: fasting blood glucose.

d

IFIS: International Fitness Scale.

Risk of Bias Assessment

The risk of bias (RoB) assessment was performed, independently and blindly, by 2 researchers for each study (GL and MJ or GL and RT, respectively) following the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 (RoB 2.0) [32] for RCTs or the Rob 2 CRT for cluster-randomized controlled trials [33]. This tool aims at assessing the RoB specifically for 5 domains: “Risk of bias arising from the randomization process,” “Risk of bias due to deviations from the intended interventions,” “Risk of bias due to missing outcome data,” “Risk of bias in measurement of outcome,” and “Risk of bias in selection of the reported results.” Consequently, an overall RoB for the study is provided. Domains and studies can be classified at low, moderate, or high RoB. The tool also allows one to indicate “no information” as an answer for each item of every domain and, in this case, it would often be considered at high RoB. A third researcher (CC) was contacted in case of disagreement to reach a consensus.

Statistical Analysis

Data from each study were extracted and reported, and a descriptive statistic was performed. For intergroup comparisons, the mean, SD, and/or mean differences for pre- and posttreatment conditions were reported. Additionally, the 1- or 2-tailed t tests for normally distributed data and the Mann-Whitney U test for nonnormally distributed data were also reported if performed in the studies. All statistical analyses were performed using the Jamovi statistical software [34].

Quality of Evidence

To perform the quality of evidence assessment, the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) [35] approach was used via the GRADEpro GTD tool. This tool helps assess both the certainty of evidence and the strength of recommendations. The evaluation process took into account 5 different domains: risk of bias, imprecision (eg, sample size, confidence intervals), inconsistency (eg, heterogeneity), indirectness (eg, eligibility criteria against actual studies included), and publication bias (eg, bias in results publication).

Results

Study Selection

The literary search process for the first review identified a total of 13,444 studies. Duplicate removal eliminated 3436 studies, leaving a total of 10,008 studies to screen. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria to titles and abstracts, 51 studies were left [19,30,31,36-82,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined]. Full-text studies were read independently by 2 researchers (GL and MJ), and in due course, another 49 papers were excluded [19,36-82,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined], resulting in the final inclusion of 2 studies for further analysis [30,31]. The complete research process is graphically displayed in Figure 1, and the reasons for exclusions are reported in Multimedia Appendix 1. Multimedia Appendix 2 reports the complete research processes of the other 2 research questions.

Figure 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram for mobile apps for physical activity.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Regarding the second and third questions (ie, mobile app for diet, and physical activity and diet), unfortunately, no studies were included. The selection processes are shown in Multimedia Appendix 2.

Study Characteristics

Among the 2 studies included in the final analysis, the first was a cluster RCT published in 2020 [30], and the second one was an RCT published in 2021 [31]. Both had only 1 intervention group and 1 control group [30,31]. The time of the intervention ranged from 4 to 9 weeks. The countries of study development were India [30] and Spain [31]. The studies’ characteristics are indicated in Table 1. The first study [30] involved 47 participants, and the intervention consisted of giving a smartphone app (Take a Walk) to remind them to perform a few minutes of walking at regular intervals. The intervention group received “walk breaks” reminders each hour of work for a total of 6 reminders a day. The intervention lasted 4 weeks. Both intervention and control groups received an indication to follow a standard diet of 2300 Kcal/day. Physical activity–related variables were evaluated using different tests or variables, such as the fasting blood glucose, VO2 max (maximal aerobic capacity), heart-rate variability, and adherence to walking breaks.

In the second study [31], involving 66 participants, the intervention group was provided with an app (Vidahora) to be used for 9 weeks. Participants were free to use the app whenever they wanted and were only advised to perform at least 10 minutes of physical activity 3 times a day. The second study assessed physical activity–related variables using several performance tests, anthropometric tests, and a questionnaire. Anthropometric tests were weight, hips, and waist circumferences. Performance tests were 20-m shuttle run test, handgrip test, standing long jump test, 4×10 m shuttle run test, and sit and reach test. The questionnaire used was the International Fitness Scale [83].

The characteristics of both studies are reported in Table 1, while the studies’ outcomes are reported in Table 2.

Table 2. Physical activity-related outcomes.

Authors (app used) and test Baseline Post-intervention
Intervention group Control group Intervention group Control group
Zongpa et al [30] (Take a Walk)
 VO2 maxa (mL/kg/min), median (IQR) 45.3 (39.0-52.3) 36.0 (36.0-41.2) 47.6 (39.6-55.9) 37.5 (35-40.3)
 HRVb
  Time domain, median (IQR)
   SDNNc interval (ms) 52.7 (51.4-53.4) 49.1 (44.8-52.1) 54.5 (52.5-60.2) 49.4 (48.1-50.6)
   RMSSDd interval (ms) 52.4 (48.2-54.2) 54.2 (52.4-55.8) 58.1 (57.4-58.6) 55.1 (53.2-55.7)
   NN50e (beats) 129.4 (129.1-129.7) 129.7 (128.9-129.2) 130.3 (129.6-132.1) 126.2 (123.8-127.9)
   pNN50f (%) 37.4 (37.3-37.6) 37.2 (37.0-37.2) 39.0 (38.2-39.2) 35.3 (34.2-37.1)
  Frequency domain, median (IQR)
   VLFg (ms2/Hz) 103.00 (101.0-105.0) 103.0 (90.0-103.0) 107.0 (102.0-112.0) 90.1 (84.7-103.1)
   LFh (ms2/Hz) 981.0 (972.0-988.2) 984.3 (983.6-985.7) 986.5 (978.0-996.0) 976.0 (962.0-984.0)
   HFi (ms2/Hz) 970.0 (958.0-984.0) 981.5 (965.0-984.0) 986.0 (973.0-994.5) 975.0 (962.0-982.0)
   LF/HFj (%) 1.02 (0.98‐1.04) 1.0 (0.96‐1.04) 1.0 (0.9‐1.0) 1.0 (0.98‐1.04)
  Nonlinear index, median (IQR)
   SD1k (ms) 37.2 (36.1-38.3) 22.1 (22.0-25.1) 41.1 (38.2-44.1) 35.8 (34.5-37.7)
   SD2k (ms) 55.0 (51.8-59.7) 33.5 (30.7-33.5) 88.6 (72.0-88.6) 59.4 (57.6-61.1)
   SD1/SD2 (%) 1.5 (1.2-1.8) 1.5 (1.2-1.5) 2.1 (1.9-2.2) 1.7 (1.3-2.0)
FBGl (mmol/dL), median (IQR) 89.0 (78.0-93.2) 87.0 (81.0-88.0) 83.0 (72.0-86.0) 87.0 (81.0-92.1)
Adherence NAm NA NA NA
Muntaner-Mas et al [31] (Vidahora)
 Weight (kg), mean (SD) 65.1 (12.1) 65.1 (13.7) 65.7 (12.1) 65.5 (13.8)
 Waist circumference (cm), mean (SD) 77.1 (9.9) 81.0 (11.8) 76.0 (11.7) 80.2 (11.2)
 Hip circumference (cm), mean (SD) 96 (8.8) 96.3 (9.0) 93.3 (9.1) 95.7 (10.2)
 20-m shuttle run (laps), mean (SD) 6.6 (3.2) 5.8 (3.4) 7.7 (2.8) 5.7 (3.3)
 Handgrip strength (kg), mean (SD) 30.8 (8.0) 28.9 (7.9) 32.1 (9.0) 28.2 (9.1)
 Standing broad jump (cm), mean (SD) 155.4 (35.2) 146.0 (31.0) 169.7 (35.9) 150.5 (29.4)
 4×10 m shuttle run (sec), mean (SD) 11.4 (1.3) 11.7 (1.4) 11.3 (1.3) 12.0 (1.5)
 Sit-and-reach (cm), mean (SD) 19.9 (8.9) 20.2 (8.9) 21.6 (9.7) 21.7 (8.3)
 General physical fitness, mean (SD) 3.2 (0.7) 3.3 (0.9) 3.6 (0.6) 3.2 (0.9)
 Cardiorespiratory fitness, mean (SD) 2.8 (1.0) 2.8 (1.1) 3.1 (1.0) 2.7 (1.1)
 Muscular fitness, mean (SD) 3.2 (0.7) 0.1 (1.1) 3.4 (0.7) 3.2 (1.0)
 Speed-agility, mean (SD) 3.3 (0.7) 3.3 (1.0) 3.5 (0.7) 3.3 (1.0)
 Flexibility, mean (SD) 2.8 (0.9) 2.8 (1.2) 3.1 (1.2) 2.9 (1.1)
Open in a new tab
a

VO2 max: maximal aerobic capacity.

b

HRV: heart rate variability.

c

SDNN interval: standard deviation of NN intervals.

d

RMSSD: root mean square of successive RR interval differences.

e

NN50: successive RR intervals that differ by more than 50 ms.

f

pNN50: percentage of successive RR intervals that differ by more than 50 ms.

g

VLF: very low frequency of power.

h

LF: absolute power of the low-frequency band (0.04-0.15 Hz).

i

HF: absolute power of the high-frequency band (0.15-0.4 Hz).

j

LF/HF: ratio of LF-HF power.

k

SD1 and SD2: Poincaré plots perpendicular to line of identity.

l

FBG: fasting blood glucose.

m

NA: not available but requested to authors.

App’s Characteristics

Information about the Take a Walk app was limited; it was described as a simple Java–based Android app that allowed participants to set personalized reminders for walking, including customizable times and data. Participants were only required to manually set when to receive the reminders to walk.

The Vidahora app was made of 4 different sections: the first section dedicated to a quiz about healthy habits, the second section dedicated to the challenges for improving different physical activities’ components via suggested video exercises (eg, strength, aerobic exercise, yoga), the third section hosted an artificial intelligence–assisted chatbot that could ask the participant about progress in a friendly way, and the last section was for setting the user data (eg, username, personal data). Badges for achievements were also present, as well as individual and community challenges with daily or weekly aims. Participants in the intervention groups were invited to use the app as they wished, with the only suggestion of recording at least 3 sessions of a minimum of 10 minutes per week of physical education.

Risk of Bias in Studies

The RoB assessment for the included RCT studies is graphically reported in Figure 2 using the Robvis tool [84]. The first study presents some concerns in the overall RoB, due to the randomization process since it is not clear how the experimenters performed it. Moreover, the study reports the registration of a protocol with a registration number, but in the mentioned database, it is not possible to find the protocol. In this case, it cannot be excluded that the results were not analyzed by a prespecified analysis plan that was finalized before unblinded outcome data were available for analysis. Indeed, the authors reported having several missing data but without any reasonable explanation.

Figure 2. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment for randomized controlled trial (RCT) and cluster-RCT [30,31].

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

The same 2 domains (D1 and D5) influence the overall RoB of the second study as well. The second study has the overall RoB indicated as “high risk.” Domains 2, 3, and 4 are at high RoB, and those are influencing the overall RoB. The corresponding authors of the studies were contacted, but no answer was ever received.

GRADE Assessment

The assessment of the quality of evidence adopting the GRADE approach could not be performed due to the high heterogeneity of the outcomes considered in the studies included. First, the 2 studies did not consider the same outcome. Moreover, even involving the same sphere of interest (ie, physical activity) did not consider the same outcomes. Specifically, the first study [30] mainly considered physiological outcomes (ie, VO2 max, blood glucose), while the second study [31] investigated performance outcomes (eg, 20-m shuttle run test, handgrip). Therefore, it is not possible to assess the quality of this evidence.

Discussion

Principal Findings

The included studies were overall characterized by a high RoB due to many missing values, high dropout, small sample sizes, and poor data reporting. In particular, the randomization processes were evaluated with the RoB 2.0 tool with “some concerns” as this tool requires this scoring if the paper does not describe the randomization procedures adopted in detail but just mention their adoption. Additionally, for 1 study, a protocol was not available. Moreover, the RoB of the second study was influenced by the decision of not including in the data analysis the participants who had missing data in 1 of the evaluations or were outliers. Thus, it might not be excluded that the results were influenced.

Furthermore, their study designs were significantly different, and it was not possible to make a direct comparison between their results. Our findings highlight the urgent need for standardized outcome measures to enable the generation of stronger, comparable evidence in this field. For each health domain examined, a validated set of standardized outcomes should be developed, allowing for their consistent use across diverse study designs and settings, including RCTs. Such standardization would facilitate more accurate assessments of mobile app effectiveness on health outcomes in healthy adults. Due to the heterogeneity of outcome measures among the included studies, it remains difficult to draw definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of health-related mobile apps in this population. Therefore, future studies should aim to include larger sample sizes to enhance statistical power and improve the reliability of findings. Additionally, greater participant numbers may also help mitigate issues related to dropout and incomplete data during interventions. Moreover, intervention times should also be standardized to be able to compare results from different studies. Another problem that emerges from our results is the lack of standardized apps or guidelines to develop them for different health domains, and this might be seen from the different outcomes considered in each study included in our review. A standardized version of the health app could allow for having a set of common health data across different apps, with the possibility of adding other health variables specific to each app based on its characteristics and aims. In this way, studies could compare the use of different health apps for the same domain and consider a minimum set of common health variables.

Other systematic reviews were carried out on mHealth in the last years [85-89] and were also characterized by a very limited number of selected studies with high heterogeneity, and therefore they could not assess mHealth effectiveness. Indeed, many of the studies they included presented mixed results of the delivered interventions and the way of delivering them [64,87,90,91]. Hence, those studies did not assess the effectiveness of the same intervention delivered with and without mHealth, as we conversely did in our work. Considering the available literature, it is fundamental to emphasize the need to evaluate the effectiveness of specific mHealth interventions. However, the intrinsic variability in the designs and the scarce quality of the currently available studies do not allow us to state if mobile apps can be effective to improve health variables.

To overcome this problem, we decided to include in our work the studies that compared the same intervention provided with and without the mobile app, and additionally also the studies considering the same treatment provided via mobile app against the treatment. By applying these severe criteria, many studies were excluded from this systematic review for improper control, leaving only 2 studies to analyze. Consistent with our findings, other works reported the need for more studies with clearer designs to test the effectiveness of mHealth technology in different settings [92-95].

Studies Included

Digging into the included studies, Zongpa et al reported that physical activity–related variables improved over a 4-week period, specifically VO2 max, heart rate variability, and fasting blood glucose. It should be noted that dropouts were 11.32%, and VO2 max improvements may be questioned because the validity of a submaximal test in healthy people is questionable. Moreover, the VO2 max improvement reported by this study was only 1.33%, while the minimal clinically important difference for VO2 max should be higher than 6% [96]. Finally, the results should be taken carefully, as the results included in the analysis considered only an intervention adherence of at least 70%, thus imposing a possible bias in the selection of the results.

In the second study, Muntaner-Mas et al reported that many physical activity–related variables evaluated in the study improved, and the authors decided to split them into 3 categories: fatness indicators, physical fitness components, and self-reported fitness.

Starting from fatness indicators (ie, weight, waist, and hip circumference), no changes were obtained that could be attributable to the app. Physical fitness components (ie, 20-m shuttle run laps, handgrip strength, standing broad jump, 4×10 m shuttle run, and sit-and-reach) were improved, but even though few changes are indicated as statistically significant, the actual improvements are minimal and might not even be clinically relevant [97]. Second, improvements of a few units of centimeters or seconds obtained in 9 weeks and from a healthy and young population could be considered scarce. The category “self-reported physical fitness” explored 5 domains, and all the components were evaluated via Likert-type questions and reported the results obtained from the International Fitness Scale. The results improved for the intervention group and decreased for the control group, but considering the possible bias emerging from the self-evaluation, improvements should be carefully addressed since changes were minimal. Even in this category, the results on mobile app effectiveness could not be considered conclusive.

Despite the study considering the mobile app effective in improving physical activity–related variables, there were many missing data (ie, about 30%), and the sample size is limited. Summarizing, the effectiveness of the Vidahora app cannot be assessed. Although the selected studies highlighted that diet and physical activity levels can be improved by mHealth apps, their weak methodological design raises some concerns about their conclusions.

Limitation

A limitation of this work must be acknowledged: this systematic review included only studies involving healthy participants. Therefore, it is not possible to report anything about people with chronic conditions or pathologies. Additionally, a librarian was not consulted to develop the research strings, as people with expertise in conducting systematic reviews, and in their methodology, were consulted.

Conclusions

Despite the studies we included seeming to support the effectiveness of mobile apps to improve physical activity, diet-related variables, or their combination in healthy adults, their poor methodological quality as well as the high variability in literature does not allow any definitive conclusion on this topic. Besides, the long-term effects of mobile apps interventions on different outcomes are scarce [92,95], and further research is needed. In addition, the interventions’ (eg, activity, diet) effectiveness should be tested a priori and then provided via mHealth. Some urgent needs emerge from the literature analyzed and from this study. Specifically, for future studies, there is a need for high-quality RCT designs with large sample sizes to better assess the possible effects of health apps and the generalizability of results. Moreover, there is a need for clearer and consistent methodology that could provide stronger evidence of effectiveness, more transparent reporting of results that would prevent any bias and would additionally allow for acknowledging what is not working with apps for health and why, and addressing healthy people to test the mobile apps’ effectiveness in preventing diseases and improving health conditions. Furthermore, standardized outcomes for each health domain of interest (eg, physical activity, diet) should be adopted, allowing for comparing the results of different studies and populations. Additionally, different studies could include, in the same health domain of interest, the chosen standardized outcomes as well as new ones, to try to expand possible results. Moreover, mHealth should be tested and validated by both patients and users before using them to deliver an intervention. Further research should test mobile apps as a tool supporting preventive approaches for health and well-being in young people and healthy participants as well. Finally, clear guidelines should be created on how to build up different types of mHealth, specifically for mobile apps, to standardize this process among health apps and to further try to ensure better use of this technology in the active aging and well-being fields.

Supplementary material

Multimedia Appendix 1. Reasons for exclusions (mobile apps for physical activity).
mhealth-v14-e66881-s001.docx (19.2KB, docx)
DOI: 10.2196/66881
Multimedia Appendix 2. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagrams.
mhealth-v14-e66881-s002.docx (52.9KB, docx)
DOI: 10.2196/66881
Checklist 1. PRISMA checklist.
mhealth-v14-e66881-s003.docx (22.4KB, docx)
DOI: 10.2196/66881
Checklist 2. PRISMA-S checklist.
mhealth-v14-e66881-s004.docx (29.7KB, docx)
DOI: 10.2196/66881

Acknowledgments

We would like to sincerely express our gratitude to Dr Simone Battista for his support in carrying out this work. In all parts of this manuscript, generative artificial intelligence was used solely to ensure clarity and correct syntax. It was not used to create or contribute any insights into the research itself or any of its components.

Abbreviations

GRADE

Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation

mHealth

mobile health

PRISMA

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses

PRISMA-S

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Literature Search Extension

RCT

randomized controlled trial

RoB

risk of bias

VO2 max

maximal oxygen consumption

Footnotes

Funding: No funding was received for this study.

Data Availability: All the relevant details and information are presented in the manuscript. Nonetheless, the data are available on reasonable request from the authors.

Authors’ Contributions: GL, CC, MJ, and MT performed study conceptualization. GL and CC performed methodology. GL, RT, and MJ conducted the analysis, investigation, and data extraction. GL wrote the original draft preparation. GL, MJ, CC, RT, AS, and MT reviewed and edited it. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

References

  • 1.Walker A. A strategy for active ageing. Int Soc Secur Rev. 2002 Jan;55(1):121–139. doi: 10.1111/1468-246X.00118. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Cai T, Verze P, Bjerklund Johansen TE. The quality of life definition: where are we going? Uro. 2021 Feb;1(1):14–22. doi: 10.3390/uro1010003. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Noble N, Paul C, Turon H, Oldmeadow C. Which modifiable health risk behaviours are related? A systematic review of the clustering of Smoking, Nutrition, Alcohol and Physical activity ('SNAP’) health risk factors. Prev Med. 2015 Dec;81:16–41. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.07.003. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lee M, Lee H, Kim Y, et al. Mobile app-based health promotion programs: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Dec 13;15(12):2838. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15122838. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Leuzzi G, Recenti F, Giardulli B, Scafoglieri A, Testa M. Exploring digital health: a qualitative study on adults’ experiences with health apps and wearables. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2025 Dec 31;20(1) doi: 10.1080/17482631.2024.2447096. doi. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Measures of health status, quality of life and health care. Health Knowledge. [19-03-2024]. https://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/public-health-textbook/research-methods/1c-health-care-evaluation-health-care-assessment/measures-health-status URL. Accessed.
  • 7.Randazzo V, Ferretti J, Pasero E. Anytime ECG monitoring through the use of a low-cost, user-friendly, wearable device. Sensors (Basel) 2021 Sep 9;21(18):6036. doi: 10.3390/s21186036. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Al-Rawashdeh M, Keikhosrokiani P, Belaton B, Alawida M, Zwiri A. IoT adoption and application for smart healthcare: a systematic review. Sensors (Basel) 2022 Jul 19;22(14):5377. doi: 10.3390/s22145377. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Park YT. Emerging new era of mobile health technologies. Healthc Inform Res. 2016 Oct;22(4):253–254. doi: 10.4258/hir.2016.22.4.253. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Thornton L, Gardner LA, Osman B, et al. A multiple health behavior change, self-monitoring mobile app for adolescents: development and usability study of the Health4Life app. JMIR Form Res. 2021 Apr 12;5(4):e25513. doi: 10.2196/25513. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Leuzzi G, Job M, Scafoglieri A, Testa M. Smartphone Apps and Wearables for Health Parameters in Young Adulthood: Cross-Sectional Study. JMIR Hum Factors. 12:e64629–e64629. doi: 10.2196/64629. doi. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Smuck M, Odonkor CA, Wilt JK, Schmidt N, Swiernik MA. The emerging clinical role of wearables: factors for successful implementation in healthcare. NPJ Digit Med. 2021 Mar 10;4(1):45. doi: 10.1038/s41746-021-00418-3. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Slazus C, Ebrahim Z, Koen N. Mobile health apps: an assessment of needs, perceptions, usability, and efficacy in changing dietary choices. Nutrition. 2022 Sep;101:111690. doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2022.111690. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Nardi W, Roy A, Dunsiger S, Brewer J. Analyzing the impact of mobile app engagement on mental health outcomes: secondary analysis of the unwinding anxiety program. J Med Internet Res. 2022 Aug 15;24(8):e33696. doi: 10.2196/33696. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ruf A, Koch ED, Ebner-Priemer U, Knopf M, Reif A, Matura S. Studying microtemporal, within-person processes of diet, physical activity, and related factors using the APPetite-mobile-app: feasibility, usability, and validation study. J Med Internet Res. 2021 Jul 5;23(7):e25850. doi: 10.2196/25850. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Xu H, Long H. The effect of smartphone app-based interventions for patients with hypertension: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Oct 19;8(10):e21759. doi: 10.2196/21759. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sarker MHR, Moriyama M, Rashid HU, et al. Chronic kidney disease awareness campaign and mobile health education to improve knowledge, quality of life, and motivation for a healthy lifestyle among patients with chronic kidney disease in Bangladesh: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2022 Aug 11;24(8):e37314. doi: 10.2196/37314. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bylappa BK, Kamath DY, Josephine IS, et al. Usability and feasibility assessment of a smartphone application (Suhriday) for heart failure self-care remote monitoring in an Indian tertiary health care setting: a pilot mixed-methods study. BMJ Open. 2022 Aug 24;12(8):e056962. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056962. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Al-Nawaiseh HK, McIntosh WA, McKyer LJ. An-m-health intervention using smartphone app to improve physical activity in college students: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jun 13;19(12):7228. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19127228. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Edwards D, Williams J, Carrier J, Davies J. Technologies used to facilitate remote rehabilitation of adults with deconditioning, musculoskeletal conditions, stroke, or traumatic brain injury: an umbrella review. JBI Evid Synth. 2022 Aug 1;20(8):1927–1968. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-21-00241. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ek A, Alexandrou C, Söderström E, et al. Effectiveness of a 3-month mobile phone-based behavior change program on active transportation and physical activity in adults: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Jun 8;8(6):e18531. doi: 10.2196/18531. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.ANZCTR - Registration. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) [21-10-2022]. https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=377945&showOriginal=true&isReview=true URL. Accessed.
  • 23.Khan R, Khan S, Almohaimeed HM, Almars AI, Pari B. Utilization, challenges, and training needs of digital health technologies: perspectives from healthcare professionals. Int J Med Inform. 2025 May;197:105833. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2025.105833. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wang Y, Wu T, Chen Z. Active usage of mobile health applications: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. 2021 Dec 22;23(12):e25330. doi: 10.2196/25330. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Schiavo JH. PROSPERO: an international register of systematic review protocols. Med Ref Serv Q. 2019;38(2):171–180. doi: 10.1080/02763869.2019.1588072. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Syst Rev. 2021 Jan 26;10(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 63 (Updated February 2022) Cochrane; 2022. [02-01-2026]. https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v6.3 URL. Accessed. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Covidence. [02-01-2026]. https://www.covidence.org/ URL. Accessed.
  • 30.Zongpa TC, Chandrasekaran B, Arumugam A. Effectiveness of a smartphone directed physical activity program on cardiometabolic disease risk in desk based office employees. a pragmatic, two arm, parallel, cluster randomised trial. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2020;10(4):713–723. doi: 10.32098/mltj.04.2020.19. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Muntaner-Mas A, Sanchez-Azanza VA, Ortega FB, et al. The effects of a physical activity intervention based on a fatness and fitness smartphone app for University students. Health Informatics J. 2021;27(1):1460458220987275. doi: 10.1177/1460458220987275. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.RoB 2: a revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. Cochraine Bias. [30-08-2022]. https://methods.cochrane.org/bias/resources/rob-2-revised-cochrane-risk-bias-tool-randomized-trials URL. Accessed. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 33.Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Jamovi (version 2.3.28) jamovi. [07-01-2026]. https://www.jamovi.org URL. Accessed.
  • 35.GRADE approach. Cochrane. [26-09-2022]. https://training.cochrane.org/grade-approach URL. Accessed.
  • 36.Wilson D, Driller MW, Johnston B, Gill ND. A contactless app-based intervention to improve health behaviors in airline pilots: a randomized trial. Am J Prev Med. 2023 May;64(5):666–676. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2022.12.011. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Fanning J, Roberts S, Hillman CH, Mullen SP, Ritterband L, McAuley E. A smartphone “app”-delivered randomized factorial trial targeting physical activity in adults. J Behav Med. 2017 Oct;40(5):712–729. doi: 10.1007/s10865-017-9838-y. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Edney SM, Olds TS, Ryan JC, et al. A social networking and gamified app to increase physical activity: cluster RCT. Am J Prev Med. 2020 Feb;58(2):e51–e62. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.09.009. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tulasiram B, Chandrasekaran B. Are smartphones better in guiding physical activity among sedentary young adults? A randomised controlled trial. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2021;11(1):77. doi: 10.32098/mltj.01.2021.10. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Mamede A, Noordzij G, Jongerling J, Snijders M, Schop-Etman A, Denktas S. Combining web-based gamification and physical nudges with an app (MoveMore) to promote walking breaks and reduce sedentary behavior of office workers: field study. J Med Internet Res. 2021 Apr 12;23(4):e19875. doi: 10.2196/19875. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Balk-Møller NC, Poulsen SK, Larsen TM. Effect of a nine-month web- and app-based workplace intervention to promote healthy lifestyle and weight loss for employees in the social welfare and health care sector: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Apr 10;19(4):e108. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6196. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ek A, Alexandrou C, Delisle Nyström C, et al. The Smart City Active Mobile Phone Intervention (SCAMPI) study to promote physical activity through active transportation in healthy adults: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2018 Jul 16;18(1):880. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5658-4. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Glynn LG, Hayes PS, Casey M, et al. Effectiveness of a smartphone application to promote physical activity in primary care: the SMART MOVE randomised controlled trial. Br J Gen Pract. 2014 Jul;64(624):e384–91. doi: 10.3399/bjgp14X680461. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Cai X, Qiu S, Luo D, et al. Effects of peer support and mobile application-based walking programme on physical activity and physical function in rural older adults: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Eur Geriatr Med. 2022 Oct;13(5):1187–1195. doi: 10.1007/s41999-022-00682-w. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.King AC, Hekler EB, Grieco LA, et al. Effects of three motivationally targeted mobile device applications on initial physical activity and sedentary behavior change in midlife and older adults: a randomized trial. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(6):e0156370. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156370. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Murawski B, Plotnikoff RC, Rayward AT, et al. Efficacy of an m-health physical activity and sleep health intervention for adults: a randomized waitlist-controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2019 Oct;57(4):503–514. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.05.009. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.van Drongelen A, Boot CR, Hlobil H, Twisk JW, Smid T, van der Beek AJ. Evaluation of an mHealth intervention aiming to improve health-related behavior and sleep and reduce fatigue among airline pilots. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2014 Nov;40(6):557–568. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3447. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Zhou M, Fukuoka Y, Mintz Y, et al. Evaluating machine learning-based automated personalized daily step goals delivered through a mobile phone app: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Jan 25;6(1):e28. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.9117. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Baumann H, Heuel L, Bischoff LL, Wollesen B. Efficacy of individualized sensory-based mhealth interventions to improve distress coping in healthcare professionals: a multi-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial. Sensors (Basel) 2023 Feb 19;23(4):2322. doi: 10.3390/s23042322. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Arrogi A, Bogaerts A, Seghers J, et al. Evaluation of stAPP: a smartphone-based intervention to reduce prolonged sitting among Belgian adults. Health Promot Int. 2019 Feb 1;34(1):16–27. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dax046. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Gabbiadini A, Greitemeyer T. Fitness mobile apps positively affect attitudes, perceived behavioral control and physical activities. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2019 Mar;59(3):407–414. doi: 10.23736/S0022-4707.18.08260-9. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Murawski B, Plotnikoff RC, Lubans DR, et al. Examining mediators of intervention efficacy in a randomised controlled m-health trial to improve physical activity and sleep health in adults. Psychol Health. 2020 Nov 1;35(11):1346–1367. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2020.1756288. doi. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Saran T, Pedrycz A, Mucha D, Mucha D. Follow-up monitoring of physical activity after rehabilitation by means of a mobile application: effectiveness of measurements in different age groups. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2018 Aug;27(8):1037–1044. doi: 10.17219/acem/69131. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Gremaud AL, Carr LJ, Simmering JE, et al. Gamifying accelerometer use increases physical activity levels of sedentary office workers. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Jul 2;7(13):e007735. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.117.007735. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Skvortsova A, Rodrigues TC, de Buisonjé D, et al. Increasing the effectiveness of a physical activity smartphone intervention with positive suggestions: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2022 Mar 1;24(3):e32130. doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/CWJES. doi. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Yoshimura E, Tajiri E, Michiwaki R, Matsumoto N, Hatamoto Y, Tanaka S. Long-term effects of the use of a step count-specific smartphone app on physical activity and weight loss: randomized controlled clinical trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022 Oct 24;10(10):e35628. doi: 10.2196/35628. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Martin SS, Feldman DI, Blumenthal RS, et al. mActive: a randomized clinical trial of an automated mhealth intervention for physical activity promotion. J Am Heart Assoc. 2015 Nov 9;4(11):e002239. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.115.002239. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Kim Y, Lee H, Chung ML. Living labs for a mobile app-based health program: effectiveness of a 24-week walking intervention for cardiovascular disease risk reduction among female Korean-Chinese migrant workers: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Public Health. 2022 Aug 4;80(1):181. doi: 10.1186/s13690-022-00941-z. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Plotnikoff RC, Jansson AK, Duncan MJ, et al. mHealth to support outdoor gym resistance training: the ecofit effectiveness RCT. Am J Prev Med. 2023 Jun;64(6):853–864. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2023.01.031. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Fukuoka Y, Haskell W, Lin F, Vittinghoff E. Short- and long-term effects of a mobile phone app in conjunction with brief in-person counseling on physical activity among physically inactive women: the mPED randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 May 3;2(5):e194281. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.4281. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Spring B, Schneider K, McFadden HG, et al. Multiple behavior changes in diet and activity: a randomized controlled trial using mobile technology. Arch Intern Med. 2012 May 28;172(10):789–796. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2012.1044. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Shcherbina A, Hershman SG, Lazzeroni L, et al. The effect of digital physical activity interventions on daily step count: a randomised controlled crossover substudy of the MyHeart Counts Cardiovascular Health Study. Lancet Digit Health. 2019 Nov;1(7):e344–e352. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(19)30129-3. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Mönninghoff A, Fuchs K, Wu J, Albert J, Mayer S. The effect of a future-self avatar mobile health intervention (FutureMe) on physical activity and food purchases: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2022 Jul 7;24(7):e32487. doi: 10.2196/32487. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Gür F, Gür GC, Ayan V. The effect of the ERVE smartphone app on physical activity, quality of life, self-efficacy, and exercise motivation for inactive people: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Integr Med. 2020 Oct;39:101198. doi: 10.1016/j.eujim.2020.101198. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Schroé H, Van Dyck D, De Paepe A, et al. Which behaviour change techniques are effective to promote physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour in adults: a factorial randomized trial of an e- and m-health intervention. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020 Oct 7;17(1):127. doi: 10.1186/s12966-020-01001-x. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Safran Naimark J, Madar Z, Shahar DR. The impact of a Web-based app (eBalance) in promoting healthy lifestyles: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Mar 2;17(3):e56. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3682. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Damschroder LJ, Buis LR, McCant FA, et al. Effect of adding telephone-based brief coaching to an mHealth app (Stay Strong) for promoting physical activity among veterans: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Aug 4;22(8):e19216. doi: 10.2196/19216. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.MacPherson MM, Merry KJ, Locke SR, Jung ME. Effects of mobile health prompts on self-monitoring and exercise behaviors following a diabetes prevention program: secondary analysis from a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Sep 5;7(9):e12956. doi: 10.2196/12956. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Olson R, Wipfli B, Hanson GC, et al. Weight loss maintenance among truck drivers in the SHIFT randomised controlled trial, USA. Occup Environ Med. 2025 Jul 9;82(4):168–175. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2024-109903. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Simmering JE, Polgreen LA, Francis SL, Strom AJ, Segre AM, Polgreen PM. Using a Fitbit-based walking game to improve physical activity among U.S. veterans. Mil Med. 2025 Jan 16;190(1-2):194–201. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usae280. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Mateo-Orcajada A, Vaquero-Cristóbal R, Mota J, Abenza-Cano L. Training and detraining effects of a physical activity program implemented through mobile applications in adolescents. ClinicalTrials.gov. 2023. [02-01-2026]. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06164041 URL. Accessed.
  • 72.Ryan DJ, Ross MH, Simmich J, et al. TRACK & ACT: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial exploring the comparative effectiveness of pedometers and activity trackers for changing physical activity and sedentary behaviour in inactive individuals. J Act Sedent Sleep Behav. 2023 May 1;2(1):12. doi: 10.1186/s44167-023-00018-4. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Collombon EHGM, Bolman CAW, de Bruijn GJ, Peels DA, Verboon P, Lechner L. The efficacy of online physical activity interventions with added mobile elements within adults aged 50 years and over: randomized controlled trial. Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2024 Nov;16(4):1921–1943. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12568. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Lugade V, Torbitt M, O’Brien SR, Silsupadol P. Smartphone- and paper-based delivery of balance intervention for older adults are equally effective, enjoyable, and of high fidelity: a randomized controlled trial. Sensors (Basel) 2023 Aug 27;23(17):7451. doi: 10.3390/s23177451. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Javed A, Kim DS, Hershman SG, et al. Personalized digital behaviour interventions increase short-term physical activity: a randomized control crossover trial substudy of the MyHeart Counts Cardiovascular Health Study. Eur Heart J Digit Health. 2023 Oct;4(5):411–419. doi: 10.1093/ehjdh/ztad047. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Ghazala S, Veluswamy SK, Ravindra S, Arena R, Myers J. Efficacy of mHealth-based workplace health promotion strategy in improving cardiorespiratory fitness in a healthcare setting: a randomized controlled study. J Occup Environ Med. 2024 Dec 1;66(12):1083–1090. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000003229. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Zhang N, Zhou M, Li M, Ma G. Effects of smartphone-based remote interventions on dietary intake, physical activity, weight control, and related health benefits among the older population with overweight and obesity in China: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2023 Apr 28;25:e41926. doi: 10.2196/41926. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Sanchez-Trigo H, Maher C, Godino JG, Sañudo B. Effects of an mHealth physical activity intervention to prevent osteoporosis in premenopausal women. A randomized controlled trial. J Sci Med Sport. 2023 Oct;26(10):545–552. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2023.09.004. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Pettersson B, Lundin-Olsson L, Skelton DA, et al. Effectiveness of the safe step digital exercise program to prevent falls in older community-dwelling adults: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2025 Mar 31;27:e67539. doi: 10.2196/67539. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Chandrasekaran B, Rao CR, Pesola AJ, Arumugam A. Effectiveness of technology-assisted and self-directed interventions to sit less and move more among Indian desk-based office workers: a three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial (SMART-STEP trial) Appl Ergon. 2025 Sep;127:104528. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2025.104528. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Pomkai N, Potharin D, Widyastari DA, et al. Effectiveness of an mHealth application for physical activity promotion among Thai older adults: a randomized controlled trial. Inquiry. 2024;61:469580241309869. doi: 10.1177/00469580241309869. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Gómez-Cuesta N, Mateo-Orcajada A, Meroño L, Abenza-Cano L, Vaquero-Cristóbal R. A mobile app-based intervention improves anthropometry, body composition and fitness, regardless of previous active-inactive status: a randomized controlled trial. Front Public Health. 2024;12:1380621. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1380621. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Ortega FB, Ruiz JR, España-Romero V, et al. The International Fitness Scale (IFIS): usefulness of self-reported fitness in youth. Int J Epidemiol. 2011 Jun;40(3):701–711. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyr039. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): an R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res Synth Methods. 2021 Jan;12(1):55–61. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1411. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Beatty AL, Fukuoka Y, Whooley MA. Using mobile technology for cardiac rehabilitation: a review and framework for development and evaluation. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013 Nov 1;2(6):e000568. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.113.000568. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Car J, Gurol-Urganci I, de Jongh T, Vodopivec-Jamsek V, Atun R. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jul 11;(7):CD007458. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007458.pub2. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.de Jongh T, Gurol-Urganci I, Vodopivec-Jamsek V, Car J, Atun R. Mobile phone messaging for facilitating self-management of long-term illnesses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12(12):CD007459. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007459.pub2. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Hamine S, Gerth-Guyette E, Faulx D, Green BB, Ginsburg AS. Impact of mHealth chronic disease management on treatment adherence and patient outcomes: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Feb 24;17(2):e52. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3951. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Bloomfield GS, Vedanthan R, Vasudevan L, Kithei A, Were M, Velazquez EJ. Mobile health for non-communicable diseases in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review of the literature and strategic framework for research. Global Health. 2014 Jun 13;10(1):49. doi: 10.1186/1744-8603-10-49. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Worringham C, Rojek A, Stewart I. Development and feasibility of a smartphone, ECG and GPS based system for remotely monitoring exercise in cardiac rehabilitation. PLoS ONE. 2011 Feb 9;6(2):e14669. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014669. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Fukui K, Suzuki Y, Kaneda K, et al. Do “Stay-at-Home Exercise” videos induce behavioral changes in college students? A randomized controlled trial. Sustainability. 2021 Nov 1;13(21):11600. doi: 10.3390/su132111600. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Aranda-Jan CB, Mohutsiwa-Dibe N, Loukanova S. Systematic review on what works, what does not work and why of implementation of mobile health (mHealth) projects in Africa. BMC Public Health. 2014 Feb 21;14(1):188. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-188. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Bacigalupo R, Cudd P, Littlewood C, Bissell P, Hawley MS, Buckley Woods H. Interventions employing mobile technology for overweight and obesity: an early systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Obes Rev. 2013 Apr;14(4):279–291. doi: 10.1111/obr.12006. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Fjeldsoe BS, Marshall AL, Miller YD. Behavior change interventions delivered by mobile telephone short-message service. Am J Prev Med. 2009 Feb;36(2):165–173. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.09.040. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Free C, Phillips G, Watson L, et al. The effectiveness of mobile-health technologies to improve health care service delivery processes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2013;10(1):e1001363. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001363. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Banks AZ, Mentz RJ, Stebbins A, et al. Response to exercise training and outcomes in patients with heart failure and diabetes mellitus: insights from the HF-ACTION trial. J Card Fail. 2016 Jul;22(7):485–491. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2015.12.007. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Bohannon RW. Minimal clinically important difference for grip strength: a systematic review. J Phys Ther Sci. 2019 Jan;31(1):75–78. doi: 10.1589/jpts.31.75. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Multimedia Appendix 1. Reasons for exclusions (mobile apps for physical activity).
mhealth-v14-e66881-s001.docx (19.2KB, docx)
DOI: 10.2196/66881
Multimedia Appendix 2. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagrams.
mhealth-v14-e66881-s002.docx (52.9KB, docx)
DOI: 10.2196/66881
Checklist 1. PRISMA checklist.
mhealth-v14-e66881-s003.docx (22.4KB, docx)
DOI: 10.2196/66881
Checklist 2. PRISMA-S checklist.
mhealth-v14-e66881-s004.docx (29.7KB, docx)
DOI: 10.2196/66881

Articles from JMIR mHealth and uHealth are provided here courtesy of JMIR Publications Inc.

RESOURCES