Smartphone Users’ Persuasion Knowledge in the Context of Consumer mHealth Apps: Qualitative Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Persuasion knowledge, commonly referred to as advertising literacy, is a cognitive dimension that embraces recognition of advertising, its source and audience, and understanding of advertisers' persuasive and selling intents as well as tactics. There is little understanding of users' awareness of organizations that develop or sponsor mobile health (mHealth) apps, especially in light of personal data privacy. Persuasion knowledge or recognition of a supporting organization's presence, characteristics, competencies, intents, and persuasion tactics are crucial to investigate because app users have the right to know about entities that support apps and make informed decisions about app usage. The abundance of free consumer mHealth apps, especially those in the area of fitness, often makes it difficult for users to identify apps' dual purposes, which may be related to not only helping the public manage health but also promoting the supporting organization itself and collecting users' information for further consumer targeting by third parties. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate smartphone users' awareness of mHealth apps' affiliations with 3 different types of supporting organizations (commercial, government, and nonprofit); differences in users' persuasion knowledge and mHealth app quality and credibility evaluations related to each of the 3 organization types; and users' coping mechanisms for dealing with personal information management within consumer mHealth apps. METHODS: In-depth semistructured interviews were conducted with 25 smartphone users from a local community in midwestern United States. Interviews were thematically analyzed using inductive and deductive approaches. RESULTS: Participants indicated that their awareness of and interest in mHealth app-supporting organizations were secondary to the app's health management functions. After being probed, participants showed a high level of persuasion knowledge regarding the types of app-supporting organizations and their promotional intents. They thought that commercial companies sponsored mHealth apps mostly as entertainment tools, whereas noncommercial entities sponsored mHealth apps for users' education. They assigned self-promotional motives to commercial organizations; however, they associated commercial mHealth apps with good quality and functioning. Noncommercial entities were perceived as more credible. Participants were concerned about losing control over personal information within mHealth apps supported by different organizations. They used alternative digital identities to protect themselves from privacy invasion and advertising spam. They were willing to trade some personal information for high-quality commercial mHealth apps. There was a sense of fatalism in discussing privacy risks linked to mHealth app usage, and some participants did not perceive the risks to be serious. CONCLUSIONS: The discussion of and recommendations for the safe and ethical use of mHealth apps associated with organizations' promotional strategies and personal data protection are provided to ensure users' awareness of and enhanced control over digitalized personal information flows. The theoretical implications are discussed in the context of the Persuasion Knowledge Model and dual-processing theories.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».