Incorporating Consumers’ Needs in Nutrition Apps to Promote and Maintain Use: Mixed Methods Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Nutrition apps seem to be promising tools for supporting consumers toward healthier eating habits. There is a wide variety of nutrition apps available; however, users often discontinue app use at an early stage before a permanent change in dietary behavior can be achieved. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study was to identify, from both a user and nonuser perspective, which functionalities should be included in nutrition apps to increase intentions to start and maintain use of these apps. A secondary objective was to gain insight into reasons to quit using nutrition apps at an early stage. METHODS: This study used a mixed methods approach and included a qualitative and a quantitative study. The qualitative study (n=40) consisted of a home-use test with 6 commercially available nutrition apps, followed by 6 focus group discussions (FGDs) to investigate user experiences. The quantitative study was a large-scale survey (n=1420), which was performed in a representative sample of the Dutch population to quantify the FGDs' results. In the survey, several app functionalities were rated on 7-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (very unimportant) to 7 (very important). RESULTS: A total of 3 different phases of app use, subdivided into 10 user-centric app aspects and 46 associated app functionalities, were identified as relevant nutrition app elements in the FGDs. Relevance was confirmed in the survey, as all user-centric aspects and almost all app functionalities were rated as important to include in a nutrition app. In the starting phase, a clear introduction (mean 5.45, SD 1.32), purpose (mean 5.40, SD 1.40), and flexible food tracking options (mean 5.33, SD 1.45) were the most important functionalities. In the use phase, a complete and reliable food product database (mean 5.58, SD 1.41), easy navigation (mean 5.56, SD 1.36), and limited advertisements (mean 5.53, SD 1.51) were the most important functionalities. In the end phase, the possibility of setting realistic goals (mean 5.23, SD 1.44), new personal goals (mean 5.13, SD 1.45), and continuously offering new information (mean 4.88, SD 1.44) were the most important functionalities. No large differences between users, former users, and nonusers were found. The main reason for quitting a nutrition app in the survey was the high time investment (14/38, 37%). This was also identified as a barrier in the FGDs. CONCLUSIONS: Nutrition apps should be supportive in all 3 phases of use (start, use, and end) to increase consumers' intentions to start and maintain the use of these apps and achieve a change in dietary behavior. Each phase includes several key app functionalities that require specific attention from app developers. High time investment is an important reason to quit nutrition app use at an early stage.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».