Preferences for Mobile Apps That Aim to Modify Alcohol Use: Thematic Content Analysis of User Reviews
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Nearly one-third of adults in the United States will meet criteria for alcohol use disorder in their lifetime, yet fewer than 10% of individuals who meet for alcohol use disorder criteria will receive treatment for it. Mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) have been suggested as a potential mechanism for closing this treatment gap, yet there is a wide variety of quality and integrity within these apps, leading to potential harms to users. objectives: The aim of this paper is to systematically record and qualitatively examine user reviews or mHealth apps to identify features in the existing apps that may impact usefulness and adoption of them. Methods: The researchers used Apple App and Google Play stores to identify mHealth apps that were focused on modifying alcohol use and treating common comorbidities. Apps that were free without in-app purchases and provided multiple features for users were included. User reviews from the apps were downloaded and coded using content analysis. Results: A total of 425 unique apps were found in our search. Of these, the majority of apps (n=301) were excluded from the present analyses for not focusing on reducing alcohol-related concerns (eg, many apps were for purchasing alcohol). Eight apps were identified and had user reviews downloaded. The apps examined in this study were VetChange, SMART, DrinkCoach, SayingWhen, AlcoStat, Celebrate Recovery, TryDry, and Construction Industry Helpline. A total of 370 reviews were downloaded and 1353 phrases were coded from those reviews into a total of 11 codes. The 5 most common themes identified were praise (498 counts coded; 36.831%), tools (150 counts coded; 11.062%), suggestions for improvement (118 counts coded; 8.756%), criticism (105 counts coded; 7.768%), and tracking (104 counts coded; 7.724%). Conclusions: The current findings suggest that alcohol mobile app users broadly found the apps helpful in reducing their drinking or meeting their drinking goals. Users were able to identify features that they liked or found helpful in the apps, as well as provide concrete feedback about features that they would like included or improved. Specifically, flexible and expansive tracking features and comprehensive whole health tools were cited as valuable and desired. App developers and those looking to expand access to and uptake of alcohol reduction apps may find these user reviews helpful in guiding their app development.
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 | 0,029 | 0,133 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».