Assessing User Retention of a Mobile App: Survival Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A mobile app generates passive data, such as GPS data traces, without any direct involvement from the user. These passive data have transformed the manner of traditional assessments that require active participation from the user. Passive data collection is one of the most important core techniques for mobile health development because it may promote user retention, which is a unique characteristic of a software medical device. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to quantify user retention for the "Staff Hours" app using survival analysis. The secondary aim was to compare user retention between passive data and active data, as well as factors associated with the survival rates of user retention. METHODS: We developed an app called "Staff Hours" to automatically calculate users' work hours through GPS data (passive data). "Staff Hours" not only continuously collects these passive data but also sends an 11-item mental health survey to users monthly (active data). We applied survival analysis to compare user retention in the collection of passive and active data among 342 office workers from the "Staff Hours" database. We also compared user retention on Android and iOS platforms and examined the moderators of user retention. RESULTS: A total of 342 volunteers (224 men; mean age 33.8 years, SD 7.0 years) were included in this study. Passive data had higher user retention than active data (P=.011). In addition, user retention for passive data collected via Android devices was higher than that for iOS devices (P=.015). Trainee physicians had higher user retention for the collection of active data than trainees from other occupations, whereas no significant differences between these two groups were observed for the collection of passive data (P=.700). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrated that passive data collected via Android devices had the best user retention for this app that records GPS-based work hours.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".