Exploring User Needs and Preferences for Mobile Apps for Sleep Disturbance: Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) apps demonstrate promise for improving sleep at scale. End-user engagement is a prerequisite for sustained use and effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the needs and preferences of those with poor sleep and insomnia to inform the development of an engaging sleep app. METHODS: We triangulated results from qualitative (focus groups and app reviews) and quantitative (online survey) approaches. A total of 2 focus groups were conducted (N=9). An online survey tested themes identified from the focus groups against a larger population (N=167). In addition, we analyzed 434 user reviews of 6 mobile apps available on app stores. RESULTS: Common focus group themes included the need to account for diverse sleep phenotypes with an adaptive and tailored program, key app features (alarms and sleep diaries), the complex yet condescending nature of existing resources, providing rationale for information requested, and cost as a motivator. Most survey participants (156/167, 93%) would try an evidence-based sleep app. The most important app features reported were sleep diaries (148/167, 88%), sharing sleep data with a doctor (116/167, 70%), and lifestyle tracking (107/167, 64%). App reviews highlighted the alarm as the most salient app feature (43/122, 35%) and data synchronization with a wearable device (WD) as the most commonly mentioned functionality (40/135, 30%). CONCLUSIONS: This co-design process involving end users through 3 methods consistently highlighted sleep tracking (through a diary and WD), alarms, and personalization as vital for engagement, although their implementation was commonly criticized in review. Engagement is negatively affected by poorly designed features, bugs, and didactic information which must be addressed. Other needs depend upon the type of user, for example, those with severe insomnia.
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 | 0.030 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".