MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388076060 · doi:10.2196/48335

Preferences in the Willingness to Download an mHealth App: Discrete Choice Experimental Study in Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands

2023· article· en· W4388076060 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Frans Folkvord, Nadine Bol, Giacomo Stazi, Lutz Peschke, Francisco Lupiáñez‐Villanueva

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundación Bancaria Caixa d'Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona
KeywordsmHealthDownloadPreprintPsychological interventionBusinessInternet privacyHealth careMedicineComputer scienceWorld Wide WebNursingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite the worldwide growth in mobile health (mHealth) tools and the possible benefits for both patients and health care providers, the adoption of mHealth is low, and only a limited number of studies have examined the intention to download mHealth apps. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we investigated individuals' preferences in the adoption of a health app. METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experimental study in 3 countries (Spain: n=800, Germany: n=800, and the Netherlands: n=416) with 4 different attributes and levels (ie, price: €1.99 vs €4.99 [a currency exchange rate of €1=US $1.09 is applicable] vs for free, data protection: data protection vs no information, recommendation: patients' association vs doctors, and manufacturer: medical association vs pharmaceutical company). Participants were randomly assigned. For the analyses, we used the conditional logistic model separately for each country. RESULTS: The results showed that price and data protection were considered important factors that significantly increased the probability to download an mHealth app. In general, the source of the recommendation and the manufacturer affected the probability to download the mHealth app less. However, in Germany and the Netherlands, we found that if the app was manufactured by a pharmaceutical company, the probability to download the mHealth app decreased. CONCLUSIONS: mHealth tools are highly promising to reduce health care costs and increase the effectiveness of traditional health interventions and therapies. Improving data protection, reducing costs, and creating sound business models are the major driving forces to increase the adoption of mHealth apps in the future. It is thereby essential to create trustworthy standards for mobile apps, whereby prices, legislation concerning data protection, and health professionals can have a leading role to inform the potential consumers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.159
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.402 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207