Dissemination Strategies for mHealth Apps: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Among the millions of mobile apps in existence, thousands fall under the category of mobile health (mHealth). Although the utility of mHealth apps has been demonstrated for disease diagnosis, treatment data management, and health promotion strategies, to be effective they must reach and be used by their target audience. An appropriate marketing strategy can ensure that apps reach potential users and potentially convert them to actual users. Such a strategy requires definitions of target end users, communication channels, and advertising content, as well as a timeline for effectively reaching and motivating end users to adopt and maintain engagement with the mHealth app. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify strategies and elements that ensure that end users adopt and remain engaged with mHealth apps. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and CINAHL databases was conducted for suitable studies published between January 1, 2018, and September 30, 2022. Two researchers independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The main outcome was dissemination strategies for mHealth apps. RESULTS: Of the 648 papers retrieved from the selected databases, only 10 (1.5%) met the inclusion criteria. The marketing strategies used in these studies to inform potential users of the existence of mHealth apps and motivate download included both paid and unpaid strategies and used various channels, including social media, emails, printed posters, and face-to-face communication. Most of the studies reported a combination of marketing concepts used to advertise their mHealth apps. Advertising messages included instructions on where and how to download and install the apps. In most of the studies (6/10, 60%), instructions were oriented toward how to use the apps and maintain engagement with a health intervention. The most frequently used paid marketing platform was Facebook Ads Manager (2/10, 20%). Advertising performance was influenced by many factors, including but not limited to advertising content. In 1 (10%) of the 10 studies, animated graphics generated the greatest number of clicks compared with other image types. The metrics used to assess marketing strategy effectiveness were number of downloads; nonuse rate; dropout rate; adherence rate; duration of app use; and app usability over days, weeks, or months. Additional indicators such as cost per click, cost per install, and clickthrough rate were mainly used to assess the cost-effectiveness of paid marketing campaigns. CONCLUSIONS: mHealth apps can be disseminated via paid and unpaid marketing strategies using various communication channels. The effects of these strategies are reflected in download numbers and user engagement with mHealth apps. Further research could provide guidance on a framework for disseminating mHealth apps and encouraging their routine use.
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 | 0.055 | 0.210 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".