A Mobile App for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Development and Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are posing a huge burden on health care systems worldwide. Mobile apps can deliver behavior change interventions for chronic disease prevention on a large scale, but current evidence for their effectiveness is limited. OBJECTIVE: This paper reported on the development and user testing of a mobile app that aims at increasing risk awareness and engaging users in behavior change. It would form part of an intervention for primary prevention of CVD and T2DM. METHODS: The theoretical framework of the app design was based on the Behaviour Change Wheel, combined with the capability, opportunity, and motivation for behavior change system and the behavior change techniques from the Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy (version 1). In addition, evidence from scientific literature has guided the development process. The prototype was tested for user-friendliness via an iterative approach. We conducted semistructured interviews with individuals in the target populations, which included the System Usability Scale. We transcribed and analyzed the interviews using descriptive statistics for the System Usability Scale and thematic analysis to identify app features that improved utility and usability. RESULTS: The target population was Australians aged ≥45 years. The app included 4 core modules (risk score, goal setting, health measures, and education). In these modules, users learned about their risk for CVD and T2DM; set goals for smoking, alcohol consumption, diet, and physical activity; and tracked them. In total, we included 12 behavior change techniques. We conducted 2 rounds of usability testing, each involving 5 participants. The average age of the participants was 58 (SD 8) years. Totally, 60% (6/10) of the participants owned iPhone Operating System phones, and 40% (4/10) of them owned Android phones. In the first round, we identified a technical issue that prevented 30% (3/10) of the participants from completing the registration process. Among the 70% (7/10) of participants who were able to complete the registration process, 71% (5/7) rated the app above average, based on the System Usability Scale. During the interviews, we identified some issues related to functionality, content, and language and clarity. We used the participants' feedback to improve these aspects. CONCLUSIONS: We developed the app using behavior change theory and scientific evidence. The user testing allowed us to identify and remove technical errors and integrate additional functions into the app, which the participants had requested. Next, we will evaluate the feasibility of the revised version of the app developed through this design process and usability testing.
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".