Feeling Moodie: Insights from a Usability Evaluation to Improve the Design of mHealth Apps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the growing number of mHealth apps for tracking and helping users to form and sustain health habits, most apps are not evidence-based and are not evaluated by the users to uncover potential issues and determine effectiveness. To fill this gap, we used a mixed methods approach to evaluate a mood-self-tracking app called Feeling Moodie. Data was collected from 34 participants [age range: 18–55 years old, with 15/34 (44%) being between the ages 26 and 35 years old; sex: 17 males and 17 females] who used the app for 15 days and completed a questionnaire about their experience followed by an interview with 18 participants to uncover more qualitative insights. Results showed a positive range for attractiveness, perspicuity, efficiency, dependability, and stimulation, but not for novelty which suggests that Feeling Moodie can be improved by increasing the level of creativity to further captivate the user’s interest. Furthermore, interviews revealed that while some participants expressed doing mood check-ins felt like a “chore,” others reported that at first, they had to use it intentionally, but after a while, it became a “rhythm,” pulling them to the experience. Based on the insights, we offer practical guidelines for increasing the level of interactivity and gradually guiding the user by using a variety of features to help them to form good habits. The results obtained in this work can inform designers on how to design more personalized apps and increase the possibility that the app will be adopted. The article contributes to a better understanding of the emotional and technological implications for designing and improving the quality of mood-tracking apps.
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 | 0.038 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".