Designing mHealth Apps to Incorporate Evidence-Based Techniques for Prolonging User Engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maintaining user engagement with mobile health (mHealth) apps can be a challenge. Previously, we developed a conceptual model to optimize patient engagement in mHealth apps by incorporating multiple evidence-based methods, including increasing health literacy, enhancing technical competence, and improving feelings about participation in clinical trials. This viewpoint aims to report on a series of exploratory mini-experiments demonstrating the feasibility of testing our previously published engagement conceptual model. We collected data from 6 participants using an app that showed a series of educational videos and obtained additional data via questionnaires to illustrate and pilot the approach. The videos addressed 3 elements shown to relate to engagement in health care app use: increasing health literacy, enhancing technical competence, and improving positive feelings about participation in clinical trials. We measured changes in participants' knowledge and feelings, collected feedback on the videos and content, made revisions based on this feedback, and conducted participant reassessments. The findings support the feasibility of an iterative approach to creating and refining engagement enhancements in mHealth apps. Systematically identifying the key evidence-based elements intended to be included in an app's design and then systematically testing the implantation of each element separately until a satisfactory level of positive impact is achieved is feasible and should be incorporated into standard app design. While mHealth apps have shown promise, participants are more likely to drop out than to be retained. This viewpoint highlights the potential for mHealth researchers to test and refine mHealth apps using approaches to better engage 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 | 0.040 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".