A case report on Recovery Record describes 1) the development and refinement of the app, 2) the characteristics of users and 3) some feasibility and utilization data (Tregarthen, Lock & Darcy, 2015). The app demonstrated population-level utilization with over 100,000 users over a two-year period. Almost 50% percent of users stated that they are not currently receiving clinical treatment and 33% reported they had not told anyone about their eating disorder. A surprising number of people with severe problems were using the app. (Paper 5)
A review paper by Juarascio and colleagues (2015) reviewed existing apps for Eating Disorders to review their features and their evidence-based content. The paper noted that Recovery Record is the most comprehensive ED treatment app that exists to date, with a range of relevant features and empirically supported content. (Paper 1)
In a pilot study of Recovery Record, 189 individuals pilot-tested the app, 133 completed the required components of the pilot-test over an 8-day period. Of these, 64 individuals (49%) completed an exit survey pertaining to acceptability. Study participants rated the app as highly suitable and acceptable, suggesting the feasibility and appropriateness of the program (Paik Kim et al., 2018). (Paper 2)
A study evaluated whether the users of the app could cluster users into clinically meaningful groups. Participants were 1,280 app users (91.3% female; mean age 27) who reported not being in a weekly treatment for their ED. Analysis distinguished five groups of participants, all approximating DSM-5 ED categories. Findings suggest that app users resemble known patient classifications (Sadeh-Sharvit et al., 2018). (Paper 3)
In an RCT, participants who had eating disorder symptoms were randomized to receive either a standard, cognitive behavioral therapy–based version of the app or a tailored version that included algorithmically determined clinical content aligned with baseline and evolving user eating disorder symptom profiles. Both study groups achieved significant overall outcome improvement. There were no statistically significant differences between randomized groups for continuous outcomes, but a pattern of improvement being greater in the tailored group was evident. The rate of remission on the EDE-Q at 8 weeks was significantly greater in the group receiving the tailored version. (Paper 4)