Consumers’ Preferences for Purchasing mHealth Apps: Discrete Choice Experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is growing interest in mobile health apps; however, not all of them have been successful. The most common issue has been users' nonadoption or abandonment of health apps because the app designs do not meet their preferences. Therefore, to facilitate design-preference fit, understanding consumers' preferences for health apps is necessary, which can be accomplished by using a discrete choice experiment. Objective: This study aims to examine consumer preferences for health apps and how these preferences differ across individuals with different sociodemographic characteristics and health app usage and purchase experiences. Methods: A cross-sectional discrete choice experiment questionnaire survey was conducted with 593 adults living in Hong Kong. A total of 7 health app attributes that might affect consumers' preferences for health apps were examined, including usefulness, ease of use, security and privacy, health care professionals' attitudes, smartphone storage consumption, mobile data consumption, and cost. Mixed-effect logit regressions were used to examine how these attributes affected consumer preferences for health apps. Fixed effects (coefficient β) of the attributes and random effects of individual differences were modeled. Subgroup analyses of consumer preferences by sex, age, household income, education level, and health app usage and purchase experiences were conducted. Results: Cost was the attribute that had the greatest effect on consumers' choice of health apps (compared to HK $10 [US $1.27]-HK $50 [US $6.37]: β=-1.064; P<.001; HK $100 [US $12.75]: β=-2.053; P<.001), followed by security and privacy (compared to no security insurance-some security policies: β=.782; P<.001; complete security system: β=1.164; P<.001) and usefulness (compared to slightly useful-moderately useful: β=.234; P<.001; very useful: β=.979; P=.007), mobile data consumption (compared to data-consuming-a bit data-consuming: β=.647; P<.001; data-saving: β=.815; P<.001), smartphone storage consumption (compared to >100 MB-around 38 MB: β=.334; P<.001; <10 MB: β=.511; P<.001), and attitudes of health care professionals (compared to neutral-moderately supportive: β=.301; P<.001; very supportive: β=.324; P<.001). In terms of ease of use, consumers preferred health apps that were moderately easy to use (compared to not easy to use-moderately easy to use: β=.761; P<.001; very easy to use: β=.690; P<.001). Our results also showed that consumers with different sociodemographic characteristics and different usage and purchase experiences with health apps differed in their preferences for health apps. Conclusions: It is recommended that future health apps keep their mobile data and phone storage consumption low, include a complete security system to protect personal health information, provide useful content and features, adopt user-friendly interfaces, and involve health care professionals. In addition, health app developers should identify the characteristics of their intended users and design and develop health apps to fit the preferences of the intended users.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".