MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2404831560 · doi:10.2196/mhealth.5242

User Preferences for Content, Features, and Style for an App to Reduce Harmful Drinking in Young Adults: Analysis of User Feedback in App Stores and Focus Group Interviews

2016· article· en· W2404831560 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joanna Milward, Zarnie Khadjesari, Stephanie Fincham-Campbell, Paolo Deluca, Rod Watson

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesCollaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care - Greater ManchesterNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchKing's College LondonKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation TrustSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
Mots-clésmHealthThematic analysisFocus groupPhoneMobile phoneContent analysisEntertainmentComputer scienceMultimediaInternet privacyApplied psychologyPsychologyMedicineQualitative researchPsychological interventionNursing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Electronic screening and brief intervention (eSBI) is effective in reducing weekly alcohol consumption when delivered by a computer. Mobile phone apps demonstrate promise in delivering eSBI; however, few have been designed with an evidence-based and user-informed approach. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore from a user perspective, preferences for content, appearance, and operational features to inform the design of a mobile phone app for reducing quantity and frequency of drinking in young adults engaged in harmful drinking (18-30 year olds). METHODS: Phase 1 included a review of user reviews of available mobile phone apps that support a reduction in alcohol consumption. Apps were identified on iTunes and Google Play and were categorized into alcohol reduction support, entertainment, blood alcohol content measurement (BAC), or other. eSBI apps with ≥18 user reviews were subject to a content analysis, which coded praise, criticism, and recommendations for app content, functionality, and esthetics. Phase 2 included four focus groups with young adults drinking at harmful levels and residing in South London to explore their views on existing eSBI apps and preferences for future content, functionality, and appearance. Detailed thematic analysis of the data was undertaken. RESULTS: In Phase 1, of the 1584 apps extracted, 201 were categorized as alcohol reduction, 154 as BAC calculators, 509 as entertainment, and 720 as other. We classified 32 apps as eSBI apps. Four apps had ≥18 user reviews: Change for Life Drinks Tracker, Drinksmeter, Drinkaware, and Alcohol Units Calculator. The highest proportion of content praises were for information and feedback provided in the apps (12/27, 44%), followed by praise for the monitoring features (5/27, 19%). Many (8/12, 67%) criticisms were for the drinking diary; all of these were related to difficulty entering drinks. Over half (18/32, 56%) of functionality criticisms were descriptions of software bugs, and over half of those (10/18, 56%) were for app crashing or freezing. Drinksmeter and Alcohol Units Calculator were the most highly praised apps overall (23/57 and 22/57; 39% of praise overall). In Phase 2, two main themes were identified. The meaningfulness theme reflected how young adults thought apps needed to be tailored to the interests and values of their age group, particularly emphasizing content and feedback around broader health and well-being factors such as exercise, diet, and image. The community theme suggested that young adults want to be able to engage with other app users, both in groups of friends and with online users for motivation and support. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted and relevant information and feedback, in addition to easy-to-use monitoring tools, were found to be important features of a mobile phone app to support a reduction in drinking. Future app development should consider tailoring all app aspects to the needs of young adults, considering broader well-being monitoring tools and online community functions.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,098
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,917

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,079
Tête enseignante GPT0,374
Écart entre enseignants0,295 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations72
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR mhealth and uhealthMême sujetSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesTravaux en français237 207