Exploring an Artificial Intelligence–Based, Gamified Phone App Prototype to Track and Improve Food Choices of Adolescent Girls in Vietnam: Acceptability, Usability, and Likeability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescents' consumption of healthy foods is suboptimal in low- and middle-income countries. Adolescents' fondness for games and social media and the increasing access to smartphones make apps suitable for collecting dietary data and influencing their food choices. Little is known about how adolescents use phones to track and shape their food choices. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the acceptability, usability, and likability of a mobile phone app prototype developed to collect dietary data using artificial intelligence-based image recognition of foods, provide feedback, and motivate users to make healthier food choices. The findings were used to improve the design of the app. METHODS: A total of 4 focus group discussions (n=32 girls, aged 15-17 years) were conducted in Vietnam. Qualitative data were collected and analyzed by grouping ideas into common themes based on content analysis and ground theory. RESULTS: Adolescents accepted most of the individual- and team-based dietary goals presented in the app prototype to help them make healthier food choices. They deemed the overall app wireframes, interface, and graphic design as acceptable, likable, and usable but suggested the following modifications: tailored feedback based on users' medical history, anthropometric characteristics, and fitness goals; new language on dietary goals; provision of information about each of the food group dietary goals; wider camera frame to fit the whole family food tray, as meals are shared in Vietnam; possibility of digitally separating food consumption on shared meals; and more appealing graphic design, including unique badge designs for each food group. Participants also liked the app's feedback on food choices in the form of badges, notifications, and statistics. A new version of the app was designed incorporating adolescent's feedback to improve its acceptability, usability, and likability. CONCLUSIONS: A phone app prototype designed to track food choice and help adolescent girls from low- and middle-income countries make healthier food choices was found to be acceptable, likable, and usable. Further research is needed to examine the feasibility of using this technology at scale.
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".