Skip to main content
PLOS Digital Health logoLink to PLOS Digital Health
. 2022 Aug 18;1(8):e0000087. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000087

The use of mobile apps and fitness trackers to promote healthy behaviors during COVID-19: A cross-sectional survey

Huong Ly Tong 1,*, Carol Maher 2, Kate Parker 3, Tien Dung Pham 4, Ana Luisa Neves 5,6, Benjamin Riordan 7, Clara K Chow 1,8, Liliana Laranjo 1,9,, Juan C Quiroz 10,11,
Editor: Laura M König12
PMCID: PMC9931267  PMID: 36812578

Abstract

Objectives

To examine i) the use of mobile apps and fitness trackers in adults during the COVID-19 pandemic to support health behaviors; ii) the use of COVID-19 apps; iii) associations between using mobile apps and fitness trackers, and health behaviors; iv) differences in usage amongst population subgroups.

Methods

An online cross-sectional survey was conducted during June–September 2020. The survey was developed and reviewed independently by co-authors to establish face validity. Associations between using mobile apps and fitness trackers and health behaviors were examined using multivariate logistic regression models. Subgroup analyses were conducted using Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests. Three open-ended questions were included to elicit participants’ views; thematic analysis was conducted.

Results

Participants included 552 adults (76.7% women; mean age: 38±13.6 years); 59.9% used mobile apps for health, 38.2% used fitness trackers, and 46.3% used COVID-19 apps. Users of mobile apps or fitness trackers had almost two times the odds of meeting aerobic physical activity guidelines compared to non-users (odds ratio = 1.91, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 3.46, P = .03). More women used health apps than men (64.0% vs 46.8%, P = .004). Compared to people aged 18–44 (46.1%), more people aged 60+ (74.5%) and more people aged 45–60 (57.6%) used a COVID-19 related app (P < .001). Qualitative data suggest people viewed technologies (especially social media) as a ‘double-edged sword’: helping with maintaining a sense of normalcy and staying active and socially connected, but also having a negative emotional effect stemming from seeing COVID-related news. People also found that mobile apps did not adapt quickly enough to the circumstances caused by COVID-19.

Conclusions

Use of mobile apps and fitness trackers during the pandemic was associated with higher levels of physical activity, in a sample of educated and likely health-conscious individuals. Future research is needed to understand whether the association between using mobile devices and physical activity is maintained in the long-term.

Author summary

Technologies such as mobile apps or fitness trackers may play a key role in supporting healthy behaviors and deliver public health interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted an international survey that asked people about their health behaviors, and their use of technologies before and during the pandemic. Sixty percent reported using a mobile app for health purposes; 38% used a fitness tracker. People who used mobile apps and fitness trackers during the pandemic were more active than people who did not. Women were more likely to use health apps than men, and people aged 45+ were more likely to use COVID-19 apps than people under 45. Differences in app usage based on sex and age indicate that tailored technologies are needed to support different groups. Participants revealed that they had to adapt their use of mobile apps to fit their needs during the highly restricted circumstances caused by COVID-19. Altogether, our findings provide new insights into how mobile apps and devices can deliver health support remotely during a pandemic, and highlight the need for these technologies to adapt to support people’s changing needs.

Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and subsequent public health measures have drastically impacted lifestyles worldwide and have had adverse effects on health behaviors [16]. Several cross-sectional surveys of adults in Australia, the US and UK have reported negative changes in health behaviors and mental health during the pandemic, including reduced physical activity [3,4], unhealthy eating habits and lower diet quality [3,4], increased alcohol consumption [1], and higher prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms [1,2,6]. In addition to self-reported changes, studies using objective smartphone-based data also showed a decline in daily step count worldwide [5,7]. During the pandemic, the World Health Organization highlighted the importance of maintaining healthy behaviors in the fight against COVID-19 [8]. With restrictions on face-to-face clinical consultations and the strain on health care systems in delivering patient care, mobile devices were increasingly harnessed to remotely deliver health care support [9,10].

Mobile devices such as mobile apps and fitness trackers [11] can be leveraged to deliver behavior change interventions and might play a role in supporting healthy behaviors during the pandemic. Specifically, mobile apps and fitness trackers can incorporate behavior change techniques (i.e., the active component of an intervention designed to regulate behavior change [12]) that are known to be effective in changing behaviors. Systematic reviews have found that behavior change techniques such as goal setting and self-monitoring of behavior are effective at improving physical activity and diet outcomes [13,14]. Mobile apps or fitness trackers can deliver these behavior change techniques, such as by enabling users to set their own goals, or to self-monitor some behaviors, as demonstrated in prior reviews [15,16]. During the pandemic, mobile apps and fitness trackers can offer unique benefits, by allowing people to access health support remotely and engage in virtual activities (e.g., livestreamed exercise class), in replacement of disrupted in-person activities. Evidence from systematic reviews suggests that under pre-pandemic or ‘normal’ conditions, mobile apps and fitness trackers can improve physical activity [1721], diet [17,22], sleep [23], reduce smoking and alcohol intake [22,24,25], and help manage mental health [17,26]. However, little is known about the use of these technologies for health behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the association between using mobile apps and fitness trackers, and healthy behaviors.

A few studies have examined the use of digital technologies for physical activity and mental health during the pandemic. Specifically, a study of Google Trends showed an increase in searches for physical activity and exercise in Australia, the US and the UK [27]. An analysis of App store data in the US showed an increase in downloads of mental health apps [28]. Cross-sectional surveys found that the use of digital platforms (e.g., streaming services, mobile apps) was associated with higher physical activity levels [2931]. While this evidence is promising, the scope was limited to physical activity and mental health and did not explore other behaviors (e.g., diet, smoking, alcohol intake) that are important to maintain good health during the pandemic. Moreover, existing research has not examined the use of fitness trackers, which have been known to have a positive impact on health behaviors [18,20,21]. Thus, there remain gaps in understanding how a range of mobile devices were being used for physical and mental wellbeing during the pandemic, and the association between usage and health behaviors.

In addition to supporting healthy behaviors, mobile devices have also been leveraged to deliver public health interventions during the pandemic. Specifically, mobile apps have been developed for COVID-19 purposes, such as to support contact tracing [9], self-management of symptoms, or home monitoring [3234]. Despite rapid growth in the number of COVID-19 mobile apps, little is known about their adoption, with preliminary evidence suggesting that specific subgroups (e.g., older people) are more likely to adopt such apps [35]. It is important to better understand how different subgroups might adopt COVID-19 apps, to inform public health strategies and policy makers in their response to the pandemic.

To address these gaps, we conducted a cross-sectional survey to examine use of mobile apps and fitness trackers to support health behaviors (i.e., self-reported physical activity, diet, sleep, smoking, alcohol consumption), mental wellbeing, and public health interventions (e.g., COVID-19 apps) during the pandemic.

The secondary aims of the study were to examine:

  1. Whether using mobile apps and/or fitness trackers was associated with healthy behaviors,

  2. What was the adoption of COVID-19 related apps (i.e., mobile apps designed specifically for COVID-19), and

  3. Whether specific subgroups showed a higher use of COVID-19 related apps and mobile apps and fitness trackers for health-related purposes.

Methods

Study design

This study is a cross-sectional survey that examined the use of mobile apps and fitness trackers for health behaviors and public health interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The reporting adheres to the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline for cross-sectional studies [36] (S1 Appendix). Ethical approval was granted by Macquarie University’s Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval number: 52020674017063). All participants provided electronic written consent prior to participation (S2 Appendix).

Settings and participants

An anonymous online survey was hosted on the Qualtrics platform [37]. The study was advertised via various channels, including social media (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, Reddit), public posters (e.g., at parks, libraries, university campus), and research institute networks (e.g., email lists, university website). In our social media advertisements, we also asked people to share the study with their networks (e.g., re-tweet on Twitter), in order to expand the geographical scope of the study. Study recruitment was self-selected, i.e., interested individuals could click on the survey link, upon which they were provided with the study information and provided an electronic written consent prior to participation. Eligible study participants were adults aged over 18 years who were proficient in English. We followed published heuristics for sampling for behavioral research and aimed to recruit at least 500 participants into the study [38]. The survey was open from start of June to end of September 2020 to achieve the targeted sample size.

Context

During the data collection period (June–September 2020), the World Health Organization assessed the global risk of COVID-19 to be very high [39]. The number of infected cases globally increased from over 10 million [40] to 32.7 million [41] during this period, with vastly different infection rates amongst countries. Public health policies across countries varied considerably with respect to lifestyle restrictions such as lockdown measures, travel restrictions, and mask mandates [42,43]. It is worth noting that during June–September 2020, a few countries had started to ease lifestyle restrictions (e.g., Australia, UK, Canada) [43].

Survey development and measures

Existing COVID-19 surveys [4446] were reviewed to inform the wording and structure of the present survey. Subsequently, a draft survey was prepared and reviewed independently in three rounds to establish face validity. Specifically, in round one, a draft survey was prepared by the first author and reviewed by a clinician and a computer science expert, with revisions made accordingly. In round two, the survey was sent out to three experts in digital health and behavioral research for feedback, and revised accordingly. Finally, the revision made in round two was reviewed again by a clinician prior to being finalized. A copy of the Qualtrics survey can be found in S2 Appendix.

Measures

Demographic characteristics

Participants reported their age (years), gender (female, male, other, prefer not to say), highest level of education completed (primary school, high school, vocational training, bachelor’s degree, postgraduate degree), country of residence, and whether they had medical conditions that required regular medical care or medication (yes, no).

Health behaviors

Health behaviors including physical activity, diet, smoking and alcohol consumption during the pandemic were self-reported. Participants were asked how many minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity they completed each week. Participants were considered to have adhered to the recommended levels of aerobic physical activity if they self-reported at least 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in a week, based on the World Health Organization’s guidelines [47].

Participants self-reported daily servings of vegetables and fruits. Participants were considered to have adhered the recommended intake of vegetables and fruits if they self-reported consuming at least five servings of vegetables and fruits in a day, based on the World Health Organization’s recommendation [48]. Participants also reported the number of standard drinks they typically have in a week, their smoking status (yes, no) and number of cigarettes smoked in a day. Examples of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, fruit and vegetable servings, and standard alcoholic drink servings were provided.

The use of mobile apps and fitness trackers for health behaviors

The survey contained 20 questions about participants’ usage of mobile apps (including health apps, general apps, and social media apps) and fitness trackers to support health-related purposes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the survey, health-related purposes were defined as staying active, eating healthily, sleeping better, reducing/stopping smoking and alcohol drinking, and managing mental wellbeing, and it was specified that the focus was not on chronic disease management (e.g., monitor blood glucose, medication reminders). Usage status during the pandemic was classified into three groups: current users, past users and never-users, based on existing literature [30,31,49]. The definition of usage status is provided in Box 1. Additionally, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with the usefulness of technologies in supporting different health behaviors. These items were measured using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The survey also contained three optional, open-ended questions to collect qualitative data on how participants used mobile apps, fitness trackers, and other technologies to support health behaviors and mental wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Box 1: Classification based on technology usage during the pandemic*
Usage status Definition
Current users People who were currently using mobile apps or fitness trackers for health purposes during the pandemic
Past users People who used mobile apps or fitness trackers for health purposes in the past, but were not currently using them during the pandemic
Never-users People who never used mobile apps or fitness trackers for health purposes

Note: Classification based on [30,31,49]. [30,31] classified participants into users and non-users. We modified this classification to include current users, and broke non-users into past and never-users based on [49] to provide more granularity in usage patterns.

COVID-19 related apps

The survey included two questions about whether people used COVID-19 related apps (i.e., mobile apps created specifically for use during the COVID-19 pandemic), and for what purposes (e.g., for contact tracing, symptom checking).

Data analysis

Quantitative data were analyzed using R version 4.0.4 [5052]. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages, were generated for categorical variables; means and standard deviations (SD) were generated for continuous variables. Two logistic regression models were used to examine the association between 1) the use of mobile apps and fitness trackers and adherence to aerobic physical activity guidelines, and 2) the use of mobile apps and adherence to fruit and vegetable consumption guidelines. Specifically, one logistic regression model included adherence to aerobic physical activity guidelines as the outcome variable, and the independent variables were current use of mobile apps or fitness trackers, whether participants used an app or tracker before COVID-19 (as a proxy for interest in technology before COVID-19), and whether participants started using a new app or tracker since COVID-19. Another model included adherence to fruit and vegetable consumption guidelines as the outcome variable, and the independent variables were current use of mobile apps, whether participants used a mobile app before COVID-19, and whether participants started using a new app since COVID-19. Both models were adjusted for factors selected a priori, including age, gender, education, and the existence of current medical conditions. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. Post-hoc sensitivity analyses were conducted to include only Australia-based participants, given the large proportion of this group in the sample.

Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore to explore whether age and gender subgroups were more likely to use mobile apps for health-related purposes or COVID-19 related apps. These subgroups were chosen based on the literature, as previous cross-sectional surveys have found that app usage might differ by age and gender [30,35]. Specifically, Thomas et al found that COVID-19 app downloads appeared to increase with age, with the 65+ age group having the highest proportion of downloads [35]. Additionally, Parker et al also found that more women than men used digital platforms for their physical activity during the pandemic [30]. Chi-square tests were used for categorical data. When the assumption of chi-square test was violated, Fisher’s exact test was used instead. The significance level for all statistical tests was set at P < .05, two-tailed.

Qualitative data (from free-text responses) were analyzed using thematic analysis [53] in NVivo 12 [54] to explore the different ways people used technologies to maintain health and wellbeing during the pandemic. Integration of results was conducted after quantitative and qualitative analyses were completed, through embedding of the data. Integration is presented throughout the Discussion section.

Results

Sample description

While 554 people consented to participation, two were under 18, and thus, were not eligible. In total, 552 participants (mean age 38±13.6 years, 76.6% women) were included in data analysis. Responses were recorded from 32 countries, with most participants (382/549, 69.6%) living in Australia. The majority (359/552, 65%) had completed a postgraduate degree, and 71.1% (385/541) reported having no current medical condition requiring regular care or medication. The self-reported average weekly time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was 164 (SD 152) minutes. The average vegetable and fruit consumption reported by participants were 2.7 and 1.7 daily servings, respectively. Most of the sample (525/541, 97%) were non-smokers. The average alcohol consumption was reported as 3 drinks per week. The sociodemographic and health characteristics of the study sample are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Sample characteristics of survey respondents.

Characteristics Na Percentage (%)b or Mean (SD)
Age (years); range: 18–80 37.8 (13.6)
18–29 180 32.6%
30–39 172 31.2%
40–49 89 16.1%
50+ 111 20.1%
Gender
Female 423 76.6%
Male 120 21.7%
Other 5 0.9%
Prefer not to say 4 0.7%
Education level
Primary School 2 0.4%
High School 41 7.4%
Vocational training 24 4.3%
Undergraduate bachelor’s degree 126 22.8%
Postgraduate degree 359 65%
Country of residence
Australia 382 69.6%
USA 52 9.5%
Vietnam 35 6.4%
UK 23 4.2%
Canada 7 1.3%
Othersd 50 9.1%
Current medical conditions
Yes 156 28.8%
No 385 71.2%
Moderate-to-vigorous physical activityd (minutes/week); range: 0–840 510 164 (152)
Vegetable consumptiond
(number of daily servings); range: 0–25
511 2.71 (1.94)
Fruit consumptiond
(number of daily servings); range: 0–16
511 1.71 (1.53)
Smoker d
Yes 16 3%
No 525 97%
Cigarettes per weekd; range 1–20 16 0.21 (1.47)
Alcohol consumptiond, e
(number of standard drinks/week); range 0–60
510 3.06 (5.33)

Notes

aTotal number in each row might not add up to 554 due to missing responses

bSums may not equate to 100% due to rounding

cS3 Appendix includes a detailed breakdown of country of residence

dSelf-reported data

eOne extreme value 6450 was excluded.

Technology use for health behaviors and mental wellbeing during COVID-19

Mobile apps

Regarding participants’ app usage habits, 59.9% (302/504) were currently using apps for health purposes during the pandemic (i.e., current users) (Table 2). Amongst the current app users, 77.8% (235/302) consistently used mobile apps for their health before COVID-19. A greater proportion of women were current app users than men (64.0% vs 46.8%, P = .004, S4 Appendix provides more details on subgroup analyses). The most popular apps used for health purposes during the pandemic were general and social media apps (e.g., Zoom, Facebook, Youtube), which were not purposedly built to promote health behavior change (Table 2).

Table 2. The use of mobile apps for health-related purposes before and during COVID-19.
Mobile app usage n/N (%)
App usage status during the pandemic
    Current users 302/504 (59.9%)
    Past usersa 103/504 (20.4%)
    Never-usersb 99/504 (19.6%)
Self-reported changes in app usage during COVID-19
    Used app more 192/401 (47.8%)
    Used app the same amount as before COVID-19 176/401 (43.9%)
    Used app less 33/401 (8.2%)
Top 5 most popular apps used for health purposes
    Pre-COVID YouTube (85/263, 32.3%)
Facebook (82/263, 31.2%)
Apple Health (80/263, 30.4%)
Instagram (69/263, 26.2%)
Fitbit (67/263, 25.5%)
    During COVIDc Zoom (54/163, 33.1%)
YouTube (37/163, 22.7%)
Facebook (19/163, 11.7%)
Calm (18/163, 11%)
Fitbit & Houseparty (10/163, 6.1%)
Purposes for app usage during COVID-19
    To stay active 248/298 (83%)
    To eat healthily 77/298 (26%)
    To sleep better 78/298 (26%)
    To reduce/quit smoking 2/298 (1%)
    To reduce/quit alcohol 3/298 (1%)
    To connect with other people 109/298 (37%)
    To manage mental health 99/298 (33%)
Physical activity purposes for app usage during COVID-19
    To track activity levels 196/246 (79.7%)
    To join a live class 74/246 (30.1%)
    To follow an exercise video 148/246 (60.1%)
    For social aspects (to compete or share progress) 83/246 (33.7%)

aPeople who used apps consistently (e.g., use an app more than 5 times) for health purposes in the past, but were not currently using them during the pandemic

bPeople who never used app for health purposes

cNew apps adopted for health purposes during COVID-19

Compared to pre-pandemic times, nearly half (192/401, 47.8%) used mobile apps more frequently for health purposes during the COVID-19 pandemic (Table 2). Forty percent (164/401, 40.9%) started using a new mobile app for health-related purposes since the outbreak of COVID-19.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the most reported health purpose of app usage was to stay active (248/298, 83%) (Table 2). Amongst those who used apps for physical activity, the majority used them to track activity levels (196/246, 79.7%), or to follow an exercise video (148/246, 60.1%) (Table 2). Over two-third of participants (203/298, 68.1%) used mobile apps for more than one health purpose during the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to men, a greater proportion of women used mobile apps to stay active (48% vs 36.7%, P = .02) and to connect with other people (22.7% vs 9.2%, P = .004, S4 Appendix).

Regarding the perceived usefulness of mobile apps for health, 59.4% (232/390) of participants agreed that mobile apps helped them incorporate more activity in their days; 43.5% (167/384) agreed that mobile apps helped them manage their mental wellbeing. Compared to men, a greater proportion of women found mobile apps helpful for managing their mental wellbeing (80.6% vs 63.2%, P = .04, S4 Appendix).

Fitness trackers

Over a third of participants (188/492, 38.2%) were current users of fitness trackers, 19.3% (95/492) were past users, and 42.7% (210/492) had never used fitness trackers for their health. The median length of usage for current and past users was 2 years (range 1 month—10 years). Forty-eight percent of responders (237/492, 48.1%) mentioned that they had used fitness trackers before the pandemic. Amongst those who used trackers before the pandemic, the most popular trackers used pre-COVID were Fitbit, and Apple Watch. Since the COVID-19 outbreak, 5.1% of respondents (25/492) started using a new fitness tracker.

During the pandemic, the most common reasons for using fitness trackers were to track different measurements (e.g., distance run or walked, heart rate), and to receive reminders to move. Over half (147/274, 53.6%) agreed that fitness trackers helped them incorporate more activity in their daily lives.

The association between technology usage and healthy behaviors

People who currently used a mobile app or fitness tracker during the pandemic had almost two times the odds of meeting aerobic physical activity guidelines (OR = 1.91, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.46) compared to non-users (Table 3). Whether participants used mobile apps or fitness trackers before COVID-19, and whether participants started using a new app or tracker since COVID-19 were also statistically associated with meeting aerobic physical activity guidelines. Specifically, people who started using a new app or tracker since COVID-19 had 1.7 times the odds of meeting aerobic physical activity guidelines than people who did not (OR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.61) (Table 3). People who had used mobile apps or trackers before COVID-19 had more than 2 times the odds of meeting aerobic physical activity guidelines than non-users (OR = 2.32, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.02). Mobile app usage was not associated with meeting fruit and vegetables consumption guidelines (OR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.76) (Table 3).

Table 3. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the associations between 1) adherence to aerobic physical activity guideline and use of mobile apps or fitness trackers; 2) adherence to fruit and vegetable consumption guideline and use of mobile apps.
Variables Odds ratio (95% CI) of adherence to aerobic physical activity guidelinea p-values Odds ratio (95% CI) of adherence to fruit and vegetable guidelineb p-values
Age 1.02 (1, 1.04) .02 1.01 (0.996, 1.03) .14
Gender
    Female 1 (reference level) 1 (reference level)
    Male 1.41 (0.84, 2.40) .20 0.77 (0.45, 1.28) .32
Education
    High school 0.76 (0.31, 1.85) .55 0.52 (0.20, 1.25) .16
    Vocation training 0.65 (0.20, 1.98) .44 0.90 (0.28, 2.87) .86
    Undergraduate degree 0.78 (0.47, 1.29) .33 0.43 (0.25, 0.71) < .001
    Postgraduate degree 1 (reference level) 1 (reference level)
Current medical condition
    Yes 0.60 (0.38, 0.94) .03 0.75 (0.47, 1.17) .21
 No 1 (reference level) 1 (reference level)
Current app or tracker usage c
    Yes 1.91 (1.07, 3.46) .03 0.97 (0.53, 1.76)c .91
    No 1 (reference level) 1 (reference level)
Whether an app or tracker was used pre-COVID c
    Yes 2.32 (1.36, 4.02) .03 1.20 (0.73, 1.97)c .47
    No 1 (reference level) 1 (reference level)
Whether a new app or tracker was used since COVID c
    Yes 1.66 (1.06, 2.61) .03 1.30 (0.83, 2.04)c .26
    No 1 (reference level) 1 (reference level)

aParticipants were considered to have adhered to aerobic physical activity guideline if they self-reported doing at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity in a week

bParticipants were considered to have adhered to fruit and vegetable consumption guideline if they self-reported having at least 5 servings of fruits and vegetables in a day

cThe model exploring the link between technologies and fruit and vegetable consumption only considered app usage, not fitness trackers.

Given the large proportion of Australia-based participants in our sample, we conducted a sensitivity analysis with this subgroup (S5 Appendix). The sensitivity analysis showed that current app or tracker usage was no longer statistically associated with meeting aerobic physical activity guidelines (OR = 1.63, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.43). Age, whether participants used an app or tracker before COVID-19, and whether participants started using a new app or tracker since COVID-19 were statistically associated with meeting aerobic physical activity guidelines. Mobile app usage was also not associated with meeting fruit and vegetable consumption guidelines in this subgroup (OR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.27).

COVID-19 related apps

Less than half of the participants (235/508, 46.3%) used a COVID-19 related app. Of those that used COVID-19 related apps, most used country-specific apps (e.g., COVIDSafe in Australia). The main purpose of using COVID-19 related apps was to support contact tracing. Twelve percent (59/508, 11.6%) used COVID-19 related apps for more than one purpose, most often to support contact tracing and get COVID-19 information.

Use of COVID-19 related apps differed by age and whether they were currently using mobile apps for their health. Compared to people aged 18–44, a larger proportion of people aged 60+ (74.5% versus 46.1%) and a larger proportion of people aged 45–60 (57.6% versus 46.1%) used a COVID-19 related app (P < .001, S4 Appendix). Compared to never-users, a greater proportion of current users (50.3% vs 35.3%) and past users (47.6% vs 35.3%) of mobile apps for health used COVID-19 related apps (P = .034, S4 Appendix).

Qualitative results

The most common and central themes from the responses to open-ended questions are described below and comprised: maintaining a sense of normalcy and social connections; technologies as a double-edged sword; desired features of technology. S6 Appendix includes demographic details of the subset of participants who answered each of the open-ended questions.

Maintaining a sense of normalcy and social connections

Participants mentioned that during the pandemic, mobile devices has allowed them to maintain a routine despite the disruption caused by COVID-19, and maintain a sense of normalcy, which in turn gave them motivation to exercise (Table 4, quotes 1–2). Additionally, most participants mentioned that technologies helped them stay socially connected with their family and friends, which alleviated some emotional stress and allowed them to share their fitness progress (Table 4, quote 3–4).

Table 4. Illustrative quotations for qualitative findings.
Maintaining a sense of normalcy and social connections
    1. “[Using mobile apps] has provided accountability to myself to do at least a little something of tracked exercise every day. I was furloughed from work, so [I] lost structure to my day and being able to track helped maintain a sense of structure.” (F, 28, US)
    2. “My use of technology has been extremely helpful in bringing some sense of normalcy into my life. Since I have had limited ability to recreate outside like normal, it has helped me adjust the way that I maintain my fitness by providing me more workout options to do in my apartment (exercise videos, biking on trainer instead of outside, etc.), track progress so I can envision how it would compare to outside, and provide entertainment/ambiance of being outside (scenic videos/nature sounds).” (F, 28, US)
    3. “As a family, we have started using the Couch to 10K app to train for a 10K run together. This has helped us stay in touch and keep us motivated.” (F, 49, Australia)
    4. “Platforms such as WhatsApp, Zoom and Facetime have allowed me to maintain connections with my friends and family. This has been essential for mental health.” (F, 42, Australia)
Technologies as a double-edged sword
    5. “Social media serves as diversion or entertainment and source of information as well during the pandemic.” (F, 41, Philippines)
    6. “Keeping away from some of the apps made me less stressed. I was not checking any update on COVID19 patients. I avoided all those unsolicited health advices that bombard Facebook/YouTube in form of ads.” (F, 39, Australia)
    7. “[My fitness tracker] has given me a guilty feeling that my exercise routine is reduced. [I feel] guilty when I see my counts barely reaching my expected goal due to working and not leaving my office.” (F, 37, Australia)
Desired features of technology
Adaptability
    8. “I am someone who has […] solidly incorporated several fitness apps into my daily life. BUT during COVID my use of them almost stopped […]. I was exercising less in solid blocks of a single activity (e.g., at the gym) and cooking more from scratch, both of which are more complicated to log. The impact of apps on my health experience any other time has been a great and positive one but that actually changed during COVID, as they weren’t designed for the highly restricted behavior people were forced into.” (F, 27, Australia)
    9. “During COVID, I used physical activity apps to avoid passing by COVID-19 hotspots/where confirmed cases have been.” (M, 43, Vietnam)
    10. “My use of apps has reduced as I took responsibility of my own fitness—walking. Because I could only walk in the same area, I developed my own challenges along the route.” (F, 61, Australia)
Gamification
    11. “I’ve also used games like Nintendo Switch ring fit and just dance for activity at home.” (F, 38, UK)
    12. “Now I still use the Qantas Wellbeing app to track my steps (& you can ’compete’ with friends in weekly challenges).” (F, 31, Australia)

Notes: The bracket provides gender, age, and country of residence. F: female, M: male.

Technologies as a double-edged sword

Participants cited both positive and negative effects from the use of technologies, especially social media, during the COVID-19 pandemic. On one hand, social media allowed people to stay updated with COVID-19 news (Table 4, quote 5). On the other hand, participants also mentioned that the high volume of COVID-19 news could cause information overload and emotional stress (Table 4, quote 6). Similarly, when talking about fitness trackers, some participants indicated negative emotions associated with self-monitoring, as their physical activity had declined due to COVID-19 circumstances (Table 4, quote 7).

Desired features of technology

There were two subthemes within the area of desired features of technology: adaptability and gamification. Participants mentioned that while technologies had been helpful, one key thing missing was the adaptability of technologies to the unprecedented circumstances caused by COVID-19 (Table 4, quote 8). Consequently, several mentioned that they took the initiative to repurpose existing health apps to serve their needs during COVID-19 pandemic (Table 4, quotes 9–10). Many participants across different ages also valued gamification features of technologies (e.g., competition, exercise challenges, exercise role-playing games), which helped them to incorporate fitness into their life with an element of fun and enjoyment (Table 4, quotes 11–12).

Discussion

Principal results

Our study found that 60% of participants used mobile apps and 38% used fitness trackers for health behaviors during June–September 2020. People who used mobile apps or fitness trackers during the pandemic were more likely to self-report meeting recommended levels of aerobic physical activity than non-users. A greater proportion of women used apps for their health during the pandemic than men. Additionally, 46% of respondents self-reported using COVID-19 apps. Specific subgroups such as people aged 45+ and current or past users of mobile apps for health purposes were more likely to use COVID-19 related apps. We note that these subgroup analyses based on age and gender are exploratory in nature and should be confirmed in future research. The generalizability of our quantitative findings is limited, given our sample of highly educated individuals who might have been more health-conscious, and had better access and more inclined to use technologies. Qualitative findings complemented quantitative findings by showing while mobile devices helped maintain a sense of normalcy, there were potential negative effects of using technologies (e.g., stress and information overload from seeing COVID-19 information on social media, guilt when seeing low activity levels), which might have impacted users’ motivation and continued use of mobile devices. Our participants highlighted the need for technologies to adapt to changing circumstances.

Impact of mobile devices on health behaviors

Our results are consistent with existing literature showing that users of mobile apps and other digital technologies seem to be more active than non-users during the pandemic [2931,55]. Uniquely, by adjusting our model to variables related to ‘previous use of mobile devices before COVID’ and ‘adoption of new apps or trackers during the outbreak’, we found these were associated with adherence to physical activity guidelines. It is possible that the physical activity benefits observed in our study are influenced by an overrepresentation in our sample of health-conscious and tech-adopting people. Future research is needed to understand how mobile devices can extend its reach and benefit other groups beyond the typical highly motivated and ‘worried-well’ adopters [56]. A sensitivity analysis including only Australia-based participants found that current mobile app or tracker usage was not associated with adherence to physical activity guidelines. It is possible that the smaller sample size made it difficult to detect the difference. Given the inconsistency between the primary and sensitivity analyses, the potential physical activity benefits associated with mobile devices observed in our findings should be interpreted with caution, and future research is needed to ascertain the potential impact of mobile devices on health behaviors.

Our qualitative data highlight the need for mobile apps and fitness trackers to adapt quickly to the changing circumstances of human lives, especially in health crises like COVID-19. Given the disruption to normal routines and closure of exercise and health facilities, people might need additional, or different types of support to maintain healthy behaviors, which is difficult to accommodate by mobile apps and devices based on static algorithms. With recent development in artificial intelligence and machine learning, mobile apps and devices can collect information about its users (including users’ behaviors, context or preferences) to continuously adapt their content, timing and delivery, and personalize their support to suit the person’s needs [57,58].

Differences in app usage between genders

Findings suggested that a greater proportion of women used mobile apps during the pandemic than men. Specifically, women were more likely to use apps to support physical activity and to connect with others, and more likely to report apps as useful for mental health. It is worth noting that this gender difference is based on a subgroup analysis and is exploratory in nature. However, we also note that our finding is in line with previous research reporting higher use of digital platforms for physical activity amongst women [30]. There are several possible explanations for this observed gender difference. Research has shown that during the pandemic, women reported increased overeating [4] and less physical activity than men [59], and heightened stress from taking on more caring or home-schooling responsibilities [1,5962]. Thus, women might have needed additional support and turned to mobile devices to support their wellbeing. Another possible explanation is linked to the type of health activities that can be accommodated in health apps. Research has suggested that women were more likely to engage in directed activities (e.g., exercise classes [63,64]), which could be delivered online more easily, compared to competitive sports usually done by men [63]. Future research is needed to explore how the adoption of mobile devices might differ by gender and how to design health interventions to reduce the existing gender differences in adoption.

Adoption and usage of COVID-19 related apps

Only 46.3% of our participants used a COVID-19 related app. Previous research has reported uptake ranging from 20% [65,66] to 40% [35,67] amongst European countries and Australia. Given that the most common purpose is contact tracing, this low uptake is concerning as digital tracing apps rely on a high adoption rate to work effectively [9]. Research has suggested that the reasons for low uptake are mainly privacy and functionality concerns (e.g., battery drain, apps not working as intended) [35]. This indicates the need to improve the functionality of digital tracing apps, as well as public health communication regarding the privacy protections of tracking technologies [68]. Our study found a greater proportion of people aged 60+, and people aged 45–60 used COVID-19 related apps compared to those less than 45 years. This is in line with previous research which suggests that the higher uptake in older adults might be related to concerns about their vulnerability to COVID-19 [35]. This trend highlights the need for public health communication to also target younger populations to ensure a high adoption rate in this subgroup. It is worth noting that since 2021, some countries (e.g., Australia) have made ‘signing-into’ venues mandatory, usually through a ‘check-in’ function in government apps to support contact tracing. Thus, since the completion of this study, it is likely that the use of these government apps for COVID-19 purposes have increased. Furthermore, given the exploratory nature of this subgroup analysis, future research is needed to confirm potential age differences in COVID-19 app uptake.

Strengths and limitations

A strength of our study is the mixed-methods design, including qualitative, open-ended questions, which allowed us to acquire a deeper exploration of users’ perspectives. However, the results must be interpreted considering some limitations. While face validity was established through multiple co-authors independently reviewing the survey draft, the survey questions were not formally assessed for criterion or content validity, and the survey was not pilot tested. Health behaviors were assessed through self-report. We assessed the impact of technologies on only aerobic physical activity and the intake of fruits and vegetables. To enable a more comprehensive analysis on the link between technologies and physical activity and diet, future research should collect data on other types of activity (e.g., muscle strengthening exercises) and food groups (e.g., salt or sugar intake). We were not able to examine the link between technologies usage and alcohol intake and smoking because only a small percentage of our sample used technologies for these purposes. While our sampling was worldwide, the majority of participants resided in Australia. As a large proportion of participants were women, and had high level of education, this might bias our findings and affect the generalizability to other population groups. Previous surveys have reported a similarly high participation rate from women and people with higher education levels [1,3,4,30]. The survey was conducted online and proficiency in English was required, which might have precluded participation from non-English speaking individuals and those lacking access to the Internet. Finally, our findings are also impacted by common limitations of survey research—self-reported answers and self-selection sampling method. This might have led to sampling bias, social desirability bias, or recall bias, which affect the generalizability of the findings and the reliability of the responses.

Implications

Mobile apps and fitness trackers seem promising in promoting physical activity during the COVID-19 outbreak. Potential improvements on these technologies from users’ perspectives should focus on personalization and adaptability, such as allowing for higher customization of content delivered and a better ability to support people’s changing needs. This is in line with previous research which suggests that personalization can increase user engagement with mobile devices [69]. By leveraging recent advances in big data and artificial intelligence [58], mobile devices may be able to provide more in-time, personalized support to users. Future research is needed to investigate whether the engagement with health apps and devices is sustained post-COVID, and robust clinical trials are needed to ascertain their objective benefits for preventative health, including physical activity and other health behaviors.

Our findings may be influenced by the large proportion of highly educated individuals who might be more health-conscious and have access to technologies more easily than other population groups. Previous research has described this phenomenon as the “digital divide” [70,71], which can widen existing social inequalities. The benefits of mobile apps and devices would be limited if they can only reach high socioeconomic status groups. Thus, efforts must be made to bridge this gap in technology adoption, such as through increasing access, promoting collaborative and inclusive design, and improving digital literacy [70,71].

Conclusion

Our study found a positive impact of mobile apps and fitness trackers on physical activity during the pandemic, in a sample of likely health-conscious and technology-inclined individuals. Qualitative data revealed the lack of flexibility of mobile apps and devices and highlighted the need for these technologies to adapt quickly to changes in life circumstances. Future research should assess the use of mobile apps and fitness trackers post-COVID, and whether these technologies provide objective benefits to health behaviors.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. STROBE checklist.

(DOC)

S2 Appendix. Survey.

(PDF)

S3 Appendix. Country of residence breakdown by the number of responses and %.

(DOCX)

S4 Appendix. Subgroup analyses.

(DOCX)

S5 Appendix. Sensitivity analyses in the Australia sub-sample.

(DOCX)

S6 Appendix. Demographic information of participants who responded to open-ended questions.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available at https://osf.io/wa5p8/?view_only=06a70c1321114dfc8f45bd4e1affca4b.

Funding Statement

HLT was supported by the International Macquarie University Research Excellence Scholarship (iMQRES) (Macquarie University funded Scholarship – No. 2018148) and the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. CM is supported by a Medical Research Future Fund Investigator Grant (APP1193862). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Stanton R, To QG, Khalesi S, Williams SL, Alley SJ, Thwaite TL, et al. Depression, anxiety and stress during COVID-19: associations with changes in physical activity, sleep, tobacco and alcohol use in Australian adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17(11):4065. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17114065 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ettman CK, Abdalla SM, Cohen GH, Sampson L, Vivier PM, Galea S. Prevalence of depression symptoms in US adults before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA network open 2020;3(9):e2019686. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.19686 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ammar A, Brach M, Trabelsi K, Chtourou H, Boukhris O, Masmoudi L, et al. Effects of COVID-19 home confinement on eating behaviour and physical activity: results of the ECLB-COVID19 international online survey. Nutrients 2020;12(6):1583. doi: 10.3390/nu12061583 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Robinson E, Boyland E, Chisholm A, Harrold J, Maloney NG, Marty L, et al. Obesity, eating behavior and physical activity during COVID-19 lockdown: A study of UK adults. Appetite 2021;156:104853. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104853 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ding D, Cheng M, del Pozo Cruz B, Lin T, Sun S, Zhang L, et al. How COVID-19 lockdown and reopening affected daily steps: evidence based on 164,630 person-days of prospectively collected data from Shanghai, China. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2021;18(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s12966-021-01106-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Appelhans BM, Thomas AS, Roisman GI, Booth-LaForce C, Bleil ME. Preexisting Executive Function Deficits and Change in Health Behaviors During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int J Behav Med 2021;28:813–819. doi: 10.1007/s12529-021-09974-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Tison GH, Avram R., Kuhar P., Abreau S., Marcus G.M., Pletcher M.J. and Olgin J.E. Worldwide Effect of COVID-19 on Physical Activity: A Descriptive Study. Ann Intern Med 2020;173(9):767–770. doi: 10.7326/M20-2665 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.World Health Organization. #HealthyAtHome. 2020 [cited 2020 7 May]; Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/campaigns/connecting-the-world-to-combat-coronavirus/healthyathome.
  • 9.Budd J, Miller BS, Manning EM, Lampos V, Zhuang M, Edelstein M, et al. Digital technologies in the public-health response to COVID-19. Nat Med 2020;26(8):1183–1192. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-1011-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Keesara S, Jonas A, Schulman K. Covid-19 and health care’s digital revolution. N Engl J Med 2020. Jun 4;382(23):e82. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2005835 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sim I. Mobile Devices and Health. N Engl J Med 2019;381(10):956–968. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1806949 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis J, Hardeman W, et al. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med 2013;46(1):81–95. doi: 10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Michie S, Abraham C, Whittington C, McAteer J, Gupta S. Effective techniques in healthy eating and physical activity interventions: a meta-regression. Health Psychol 2009;28(6):690. doi: 10.1037/a0016136 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Samdal GB, Eide GE, Barth T, Williams G, Meland E. Effective behaviour change techniques for physical activity and healthy eating in overweight and obese adults; systematic review and meta-regression analyses. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2017;14(1):1–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Conroy DE, Yang C-H, Maher JP. Behavior change techniques in top-ranked mobile apps for physical activity. Am J Prev Med 2014;46(6):649–652. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.01.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lyons EJ, Lewis ZH, Mayrsohn BG, Rowland JL. Behavior change techniques implemented in electronic lifestyle activity monitors: A systematic content analysis. J Med Internet Res 2014;16(8):e192. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3469 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.McKay FH, Wright A, Shill J, Stephens H, Uccellini M. Using health and well-being apps for behavior change: a systematic search and rating of apps. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 2019;7(7):e11926. doi: 10.2196/11926 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Laranjo L, Ding D, Heleno B, Kocaballi B, Quiroz JC, Tong HL, et al. Do smartphone applications and activity trackers increase physical activity in adults? Systematic review, meta-analysis and metaregression. Br J Sports Med 2020;55(8):422–432. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102892 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Romeo A, Edney S, Plotnikoff R, Curtis R, Ryan J, Sanders I, et al. Can smartphone apps increase physical activity? Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res 2019;21(3):e12053. doi: 10.2196/12053 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Tang MSS, Moore K, McGavigan A, Clark RA, Ganesan AN. Effectiveness of wearable trackers on physical activity in healthy adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 2020. Jul 22;8(7):e15576. doi: 10.2196/15576 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Brickwood K-J, Watson G, O’Brien J, Williams AD. Consumer-based wearable activity trackers increase physical activity participation: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 2019. Apr 12;7(4):e11819. doi: 10.2196/11819 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Palmer M, Sutherland J, Barnard S, Wynne A, Rezel E, Doel A, et al. The effectiveness of smoking cessation, physical activity/diet and alcohol reduction interventions delivered by mobile phones for the prevention of non-communicable diseases: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. PLoS One 2018;13(1):e0189801. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189801 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Choi YK, Demiris G, Lin S-Y, Iribarren SJ, Landis CA, Thompson HJ, et al. Smartphone applications to support sleep self-management: review and evaluation. J Clin Sleep Med 2018; 14(10):1783–1790. doi: 10.5664/jcsm.7396 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Afshin A, Babalola D, Mclean M, Yu Z, Ma W, Chen CY, et al. Information technology and lifestyle: a systematic evaluation of internet and mobile interventions for improving diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco, and alcohol use. J Am Heart Assoc 2016;5(9):e003058. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.115.003058 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kazemi DM, Borsari B, Levine MJ, Li S, Lamberson KA, Matta LA. A systematic review of the mHealth interventions to prevent alcohol and substance abuse. J Health Commun 2017;22(5):413–432. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2017.1303556 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wang K, Varma DS, Prosperi M. A systematic review of the effectiveness of mobile apps for monitoring and management of mental health symptoms or disorders. J Psychiatr Res 2018;107:73–78. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2018.10.006 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ding D, del Pozo Cruz B, Green MA, Bauman AE. Is the COVID-19 lockdown nudging people to be more active: a big data analysis. Br J Sports Med 2020;54:1183–1184. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102575 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Wang X, Markert C, Sasangohar F. Investigating popular mental health mobile application downloads and activity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hum Factors 2021: 0018720821998110. doi: 10.1177/0018720821998110 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Yang Y, Koenigstorfer J. Determinants of physical activity maintenance during the Covid-19 pandemic: a focus on fitness apps. Transl Behav Med 2020;10(4):835–842. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibaa086 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Parker K, Uddin R, Ridgers ND, Brown H, Veitch J, Salmon J, et al. The use of digital platforms for adults’ and adolescents’ physical activity during the COVID-19 pandemic (Our Life at Home): Survey study. J Med Internet Res 2021;23(2):e23389. doi: 10.2196/23389 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Marchant G, Bonaiuto F, Bonaiuto M, Guillet Descas E. Exercise and physical activity eHealth in COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study of effects on motivations, behavior change mechanisms, and behavior. Front Psychol 2021;12(147). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.618362 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Whitelaw S, Mamas MA, Topol E, Van Spall HGC. Applications of digital technology in COVID-19 pandemic planning and response. The Lancet Digit Health 2020;2(8):e435–e440. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30142-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kondylakis H, Katehakis DG, Kouroubali A, Logothetidis F, Triantafyllidis A, Kalamaras I, et al. COVID-19 mobile apps: A systematic review of the literature. J Med Internet Res 2020;22(12):e23170–e23170. doi: 10.2196/23170 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ming LC, Untong N, Aliudin NA, Osili N, Kifli N, Tan CS, et al. Mobile health apps on COVID-19 launched in the early days of the pandemic: Content analysis and review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020;8(9):e19796. doi: 10.2196/19796 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Thomas R, Michaleff ZA, Greenwood H, Abukmail E, Glasziou P. Concerns and misconceptions about the Australian Government’s COVIDSafe app: Cross-sectional survey study. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2020;6(4):e23081. doi: 10.2196/23081 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. IntJ Surg 2014. Dec;12(12):1495–1499. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Qualtrics. Qualtrics. Version Arp 2021 [software]. Provo, Utah, USA; 2005. Available from: https://www.qualtrics.com.
  • 38.Roscoe JT. Fundamental research statistics for the behavioral sciences New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1975. ISBN: 0030919347. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.World Health Organization. Statement on the fourth meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). 2020. [cited 2020 15 Dec]; Available from: https://www.who.int/news/item/01-08-2020-statement-on-the-fourth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19). [Google Scholar]
  • 40.World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Situation Report– 162 2020 [cited 2020 15 Dec]; Available from: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/20200630-covid-19-sitrep-162.pdf?sfvrsn=e00a5466_2.
  • 41.World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) weekly epidemological update—28 Sep 2020. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Chaudhry R, Dranitsaris G, Mubashir T, Bartoszko J, Riazi S. A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes. EClinicalMedicine 2020;25:100464. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100464 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Our World in Data. COVID-19: Stringency Index. n.d [cited 2021 15 Mar]; Available from: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-government-stringency-index.
  • 44.University of Winchester. Effect of Coronavirus Restrictions on Physical Activity and Wellbeing. 2020. [cited 2020 7 May]; Available from: https://winchester.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/effect-of-coronavirus-on-physical-activity-and-wellbeing. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.University College London. Health behaviours during the covid-19 pandemic. 2020. [cited 2020 7 May]; Available from: https://www.ucl-covid19research.co.uk/. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Westmead Applied Research Centre. COVID-19 STAYHOME4HEALTH Wellbeing Survey. 2020 [cited 2020 7 May]; Available from: https://redcap.sydney.edu.au/surveys/?s=DFJX37K47C.
  • 47.World Health Organization. Physical activity factsheet. 2020. [cited 2020 15 Dec]; Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/physical-activity. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.World Health Organization. Healthy diet fact sheet. 2020. [cited 2021 29 Apr]; Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/healthy-diet. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ryan J, Edney S, Maher C. Anxious or empowered? A cross-sectional study exploring how wearable activity trackers make their owners feel. BMC Psychology 2019;7(1):42. doi: 10.1186/s40359-019-0315-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Hadley Wickham RF, Lionel Henry, Kirill Müller dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. R package version 1.0.4 ed 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Terry G HN, Clarke V, Braun V. Thematic analysis. In: C W, editor. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. London, UK: Sage Publication; 2013. p. 17–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.QSR International Pty Ltd. NVivo. Version 12 [software]. Available from: https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home.
  • 55.Petersen JM, Kemps E, Lewis LK, Prichard I. Promoting physical activity during the COVID-19 lockdown in Australia: The roles of psychological predictors and commercial physical activity apps. Psychol Sport Exerc 2021:102002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Gordon WJ, Landman A, Zhang H, Bates DW. Beyond validation: getting health apps into clinical practice. NPJ Digit Med 2020;3(1):1–6. doi: 10.1038/s41746-019-0212-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Insel TR. Digital phenotyping: Technology for a new science of behavior. JAMA 2017;318(13):1215–1216. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.11295 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med 2019;25(1):44. doi: 10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Nienhuis CP, Lesser IA. The impact of COVID-19 on women’s physical activity behavior and mental well-being. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17(23):9036. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17239036 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Australian Academy of Science. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on women in the STEM workforce. 2020 May 17 [cited 2022 Jul 18]. Canberra, Australia. Available from: https://www.science.org.au/covid19/women-stem-workforce.
  • 61.Workplace Gender Equality Agency. Gendered impact of COVID-19. Sydney, Australia. 2020 May 11 [cited 2021 15 Mar]; Available from: https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Gendered%20impacts%20of%20COVID19_0.pdf.
  • 62.Hubbard G, den Daas C, Johnston M, Dixon D. Sociodemographic and psychological risk factors for anxiety and depression: Findings from the COVID-19 Health and Adherence Research in Scotland on Mental Health (CHARIS-MH) Cross-sectional survey. Int J Behav Med 2021;28(6):788–800. doi: 10.1007/s12529-021-09967-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.García-Tascón M, Sahelices-Pinto C, Mendaña-Cuervo C, Magaz-González AM. The impact of the COVID-19 confinement on the habits of PA practice according to gender (male/female): Spanish case. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17(19):6961. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17196961 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.van Uffelen JGZ, Khan A, Burton NW. Gender differences in physical activity motivators and context preferences: a population-based study in people in their sixties. BMC Public Health 2017;17(1):624. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4540-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Montagni I, Roussel N, Thiebaut R, Tzourio C. Health care students’ knowledge of and attitudes, beliefs, and practices toward the French COVID-19 App: Cross-sectional questionnaire study. J Med Internet Res 2021;23(3):e26399. doi: 10.2196/26399 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Ranisch R, Nijsingh N, Ballantyne A, van Bergen A, Buyx A, Friedrich O, et al. Digital contact tracing and exposure notification: ethical guidance for trustworthy pandemic management. Ethics Inf Technol 2020;23:285–294. doi: 10.1007/s10676-020-09566-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Garrett PM, White JP, Lewandowsky S, Kashima Y, Perfors A, Little DR, et al. The acceptability and uptake of smartphone tracking for COVID-19 in Australia. PLoS One 2021;16(1):e0244827. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244827 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Akinbi A, Forshaw M, Blinkhorn V. Contact tracing apps for the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic literature review of challenges and future directions for neo-liberal societies. Health Inf Sci Syst 2021;9(1):18. doi: 10.1007/s13755-021-00147-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Mustafa AS, Na Ali, Dhillon JS, Alkawsi G, Baashar Y, editors. User engagement and abandonment of mHealth: A cross-sectional survey. Healthcare; 2022;10(2):221 doi: 10.3390/healthcare10020221 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Rodriguez JA, Clark CR, Bates DW. Digital health equity as a necessity in the 21st century cures act era. JAMA 2020;323(23):2381–2382. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.7858 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Eruchalu CN, Pichardo MS, Bharadwaj M, Rodriguez CB, Rodriguez JA, Bergmark RW, et al. The expanding digital divide: Digital health access inequities during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City. J Urban Health 2021;98(2):183–186. doi: 10.1007/s11524-020-00508-9 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLOS Digit Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000087.r001

Decision Letter 0

Martin G Frasch, Laura M König

27 Apr 2022

PDIG-D-21-00140

The use of mobile apps and fitness trackers to promote healthy behaviors during COVID-19: A cross-sectional survey

PLOS Digital Health

Dear Dr. Tong,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Digital Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Digital Health's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address the comments of the reviewers attached below. Several reviewers raised concerns regarding the testing and validation of the survey, lack of generalisability due to self-selection biases and the international nature of the survey, especially in the context of differences in Covid-19-related measures and health behaviour recommendations.

Please submit your revised manuscript by . If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at digitalhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pdig/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Laura M. König

Academic Editor

PLOS Digital Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please update your Competing Interests statement. If you have no competing interests to declare, please state: “The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.”

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Digital Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

--------------------

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

--------------------

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

--------------------

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Digital Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

--------------------

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting research.

I have highlighted a few comments to improve the manuscript.

1. Was the survey items/questions validated?

2. Line 146: What is the rationale for the study duration?

3. Why was snowball sampling explicitly used?

4. Line 153: specify the period (date) rather than "during this time."

5. Line 189: 5-point Likert scale?

6. Line 249: What is the frequency of Mobile App usage (e.g., once a week, daily, monthly)?

7. Suggest putting survey items/questions in a table for easy understanding.

8. Define the current, past, and never users categories (include references). Some studies use light or heavy users.

9. Did you identify the gamification features that users were interested in?

10. Line 362-363: Suggest to detail the negative effects.

11. Important to highlight the negative and positive effects on user motivation and adherence?

12. Can gamification positively affect the adoption and post-adoption of the COVID-19 apps?

13. Interested in knowing if these apps were theory-based and their relevance to the present of future study.

14. The results can be expanded to compare with similar studies. An interesting study to consider is:

User Engagement and Abandonment of mHealth: A Cross-Sectional Survey (2022). In Healthcare (Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 221). MDPI.

Thank you.

Reviewer #2: - The self-selection bias in this sample is so significant that I have to question the added value for research. But this is not limited to sociodemographic patterns. How valid are statements about subgroups of different usage behavior in a sample that seem to be strongly overrepresented by participants with higher health and fitness orientation?

- Another substantial issue is the inclusion of participants from such diverse national backgrounds. Covid 19 incidences and distancing rules varied massively around the globe within the corresponing survey period. Amongst other reasons, this was obvious, at least because of the seasonal variation in pandemic events in the northern vs. southern hemisphere and completely different policy measures (e.g., USA vs. Australia). Therefore, I would strongly recommend limiting the analyses to the Australian subpopulation.

- Furthermore, I would recommend not to focus the analyses of so-called “subgroups” only on differential frequencies of app usage depending on sociodemographic characteristics. The authors should consider applying methods for exploring subgroups within the sample instead, e.g., cluster analysis or latent class analyses.

- I think using an app tracker before the pandemic is a strongly confounded proxy for interest in technology, as this may also indicate increased health and fitness orientation of the participants in particular. (For example, only 3% reported being smokers , with an average of 0.2 cigarettes a week!).

Reviewer #3: Thank you for this interesting manuscript describing technology usage and healthy behaviors during COVID-19.Please find below my comments:

Major comments:

1) I would like to know if you pilot-tested the survey. If not, could you please describe the methodology that you followed in order to create a validated survey?

2) "Diet was assessed by self-report of daily servings of vegetables and fruits."

Why did you assess only those two food categories? I would appreciate it if you could provide data on the rest of the food groups.

3) In Table 2, how did you define "more or less" in the usage of the app?

4)"Mobile app usage was not associated with meeting fruit 296 and vegetables consumption guidelines (OR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.76) (Table 3)"

Since you are including data from people coming from different countries and those ones have different guidelines, how did you end up with adherence or no to fruit and vegetable guidelines?

5)Could you maybe group the qualitative data? To my opinion, the quotations do not add a lot to the manuscript.

Minor comments:

Please check Table 1 to ensure that all categories reach 100%

--------------------

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Abdulsalam Salihu Mustafa

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

--------------------

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Digital Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

--------------------

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Digit Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000087.r003

Decision Letter 1

Martin G Frasch, Laura M König

14 Jul 2022

The use of mobile apps and fitness trackers to promote healthy behaviors during COVID-19: A cross-sectional survey

PDIG-D-21-00140R1

Dear Ms Tong,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'The use of mobile apps and fitness trackers to promote healthy behaviors during COVID-19: A cross-sectional survey' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Digital Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact digitalhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Digital Health.

Best regards,

Laura M. König

Academic Editor

PLOS Digital Health

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Digital Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Digital Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I am happy with all the responses from the Authors. The quality of the manuscript has been enhanced.

Reviewer #2: I would like to thank the authors for their efforts related to the revision of the manusciprt and the additional analysis undertaken to address the issues highlighted in my previous review. I have no further comments to add.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Abdulsalam Salihu Mustafa

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. STROBE checklist.

    (DOC)

    S2 Appendix. Survey.

    (PDF)

    S3 Appendix. Country of residence breakdown by the number of responses and %.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Appendix. Subgroup analyses.

    (DOCX)

    S5 Appendix. Sensitivity analyses in the Australia sub-sample.

    (DOCX)

    S6 Appendix. Demographic information of participants who responded to open-ended questions.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2022-06-06_Tong-response-to-reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data that support the findings of this study are openly available at https://osf.io/wa5p8/?view_only=06a70c1321114dfc8f45bd4e1affca4b.


    Articles from PLOS Digital Health are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES