Influence of Personality on mHealth Use in Patients with Diabetes: Prospective Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Mobile technology for health (mHealth) interventions are increasingly being used to help improve self-management among patients with diabetes; however, these interventions have not been adopted by a large number of patients and often have high dropout rates. Patient personality characteristics may play a critical role in app adoption and active utilization, but few studies have focused on addressing this question. Objective This study aims to address a gap in understanding of the relationship between personality traits and mHealth treatment for patients with diabetes. We tested the role of the five-factor model of personality traits (openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) in mHealth adoption preference and active utilization. Methods We developed an mHealth app (DiaSocial) aimed to encourage diabetes self-management. We recruited 98 patients with diabetes—each patient freely chose whether to receive the standard care or the mHealth app intervention. Patient demographic information and patient personality characteristics were assessed at baseline. App usage data were collected to measure user utilization of the app. Patient health outcomes were assessed with lab measures of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c level). Logistic regression models and linear regression were employed to explore factors predicting the relationship between mHealth use (adoption and active utilization) and changes in health outcome. Results Of 98 study participants, 46 (47%) downloaded and used the app. Relatively younger patients with diabetes were 9% more likely to try and use the app (P=.02, odds ratio [OR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.98) than older patients with diabetes were. Extraversion was negatively associated with adoption of the mHealth app (P=.04, OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-0.98), and openness to experience was positively associated with adoption of the app (P=.03, OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.07-2.80). Gender (P=.43, OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.23-1.88), education (senior: P=.99, OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32-3.11; higher: P=.21, OR 2.51, 95% CI 0.59-10.66), and baseline HbA1c level (P=.36, OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.47-1.31) were not associated with app adoption. Among those who adopted the app, a low education level (senior versus primary P=.003; higher versus primary P=.03) and a high level of openness to experience (P=.048, OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.01-4.00) were associated with active app utilization. Active users showed a significantly greater decrease in HbA1c level than other users (ΔHbA1c=−0.64, P=.05). Conclusions This is one of the first studies to investigate how different personality traits influence the adoption and active utilization of an mHealth app among patients with diabetes. The research findings suggest that personality is a factor that should be considered when trying to identify patients who would benefit the most from apps for diabetes management.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".