An Analytics Platform to Evaluate Effective Engagement With Pediatric Mobile Health Apps: Design, Development, and Formative Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) apps for pediatric chronic conditions are growing in availability and challenge investigators to conduct rigorous evaluations that keep pace with mHealth innovation. Traditional research methods are poorly suited to operationalize the agile, iterative trials required to evidence and optimize these digitally mediated interventions. OBJECTIVE: We sought to contribute a resource to support the quantification, analysis, and visualization of analytic indicators of effective engagement with mHealth apps for chronic conditions. METHODS: We applied user-centered design methods to design and develop an Analytics Platform to Evaluate Effective Engagement (APEEE) with consumer mHealth apps for chronic conditions and implemented the platform to analyze both retrospective and prospective data generated from a smartphone-based pain self-management app called iCanCope for young people with chronic pain. RESULTS: Through APEEE, we were able to automate the process of defining, operationalizing, and evaluating effective engagement with iCanCope. Configuring the platform to integrate with the app was feasible and provided investigators with a resource to consolidate, analyze, and visualize engagement data generated by participants in real time. Preliminary efforts to evaluate APEEE showed that investigators perceived the platform to be an acceptable evaluative resource and were satisfied with its design, functionality, and performance. Investigators saw potential in APEEE to accelerate and augment evidence generation and expressed enthusiasm for adopting the platform to support their evaluative practice once fully implemented. CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic, real-time analytic platforms may provide investigators with a powerful means to characterize the breadth and depth of mHealth app engagement required to achieve intended health outcomes. Successful implementation of APEEE into evaluative practice may contribute to the realization of effective and evidence-based mHealth care.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.111 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".