MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joanna Milward, Zarnie Khadjesari, Stephanie Fincham-Campbell, Paolo Deluca, Rod Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCollaboration 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
KeywordsmHealthThematic analysisFocus groupPhoneMobile phoneContent analysisEntertainmentComputer scienceMultimediaInternet privacyApplied psychologyPsychologyMedicineQualitative researchPsychological interventionNursing

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations72
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207