Postsecondary Student Engagement With a Mental Health App and Online Platform (Thought Spot): Qualitative Study Assessing Factors Related to User Experience (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is growing interest in using mobile apps and online tools to support postsecondary student mental health, but most of these solutions have suboptimal user engagement in real-world settings. Poor engagement can limit long-term effectiveness and usefulness of these tools. Previous literature has proposed several theories that link factors such as low usability and poor user-centered design to app disengagement. However, few studies provide direct evidence showing what factors contribute to suboptimal user engagement in the context of mobile mental health apps for postsecondary students. OBJECTIVE This study focuses on understanding postsecondary students’ attitudes and behaviors when using Thought Spot, a co-designed mental health app and online platform, to understand factors related to engagement and user experience. METHODS Students who were given access to Thought Spot for 6 months during a randomized trial of the intervention were invited to participate in one-on-one semistructured interviews. The interviews explored participants’ overall experiences and perceptions of the app, along with factors that affected their usage of various features. All interviews were recorded, and template analysis was used to analyze transcripts. RESULTS User satisfaction was mixed among users of Thought Spot. The degree of engagement with the app appeared to be affected by factors that can be grouped 5 themes: (1) Students valued detailed, inclusive, and relevant content; (2) Technical glitches and a lack of integration with other apps affected overall user experience and satisfaction with the app; (3) Using the app to support peers or family can increase engagement; (4) Crowdsourced information from peers about mental health resources drove user engagement, but was difficult to obtain; and (5) Users often turned to the app when they had an immediate need for mental health information, rather than using it to track mental health information over time. CONCLUSIONS Content, user experience, user-centeredness, and peer support are important determinants of user engagement with mobile mental health apps among postsecondary students. In this study, participants disengaged when the app did not meet their expectations on these determinants. Future studies on user engagement should further explore the effectiveness of different features and the relative importance of various criteria for high-quality apps. Doing so may inform the creation of interventions that best engage students and align with their mental health needs. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03412461; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03412461 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.2196/resprot.6446
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".