A primary healthcare clinic in a needle syringe program may contribute to HIV prevention by early detection of incident HIV in an injecting drug user

A composite score with a maximum total of 33 was calculated for each application. The scoring system weighted each domain as follows: coverage (10 points), accuracy (8 points), applicability (6 points), user-friendliness (6 points) and accountability (3 points). The final composite score for each application was converted to a percentage with applications scored as good (≥70%), fair (50-69%) or poor (≤49%). Of the 403 applications located, 92 met inclusion criteria for downloading, but 35 did not meet the inclusion criteria on closer examination and three had technical problems. Overall, eight applications were rated as good. They were five “calorie and physical activity counters” and three “BMI or weight trackers”. Thirty-two of the applications were rated as fair and 14 were rated as poor. The applications that were rated as good had better coverage and accuracy scores compared to those rated as fair or poor. Less than a third of all applications had complete accuracy. All applications scored well for user-friendliness, but scored poorly for author’s accountability. The USDA Nutrient Database of Foods was used in all applications and energy intake was tracked with “calories” instead of “kilojoules”, the measure used in Australia. As many manufactured and takeaway foods consumed in the US differ to those commonly eaten in Australia the applicability for Australians is limited. Thus, while the majority of applications did not score well, those rated as good may be a useful adjunct treatment to health professionals’ advice to assist their patients’ weight loss efforts. The assessment tool devised to rate the applications may be useful for future use with new applications and some customisation of the good applications, such as the use of Australian food databases, is indicated.