Mining User Reviews From Hypertension Management Mobile Health Apps to Explore Factors Influencing User Satisfaction and Their Asymmetry: Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertension significantly impacts the well-being and health of individuals globally. Hypertension management apps (HMAs) have been shown to assist patients in controlling blood pressure (BP), with their efficacy validated in clinical trials. However, the utilization of HMAs continues to be suboptimal. Presently, there is a dearth of real-world research based on big data and exploratory mining that compares Chinese and American HMAs. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to systematically gather HMAs and their user reviews from both China and the United States. Subsequently, using data mining techniques, the study aims to compare the user experience, satisfaction levels, influencing factors, and asymmetry between Chinese and American users of HMAs. In addition, the study seeks to assess the disparities in satisfaction and its determinants while delving into the asymmetry of these factors. METHODS: The study sourced HMAs and user reviews from 10 prominent Chinese and American app stores globally. Using the latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) topic model, the research identified various topics within user reviews. Subsequently, the Tobit model was used to investigate the impact and distinctions of each topic on user satisfaction. The Wald test was applied to analyze differences in effects across various factors. RESULTS: We examined a total of 261 HMAs along with their associated user reviews, amounting to 116,686 reviews in total. In terms of quantity and overall satisfaction levels, Chinese HMAs (n=91) and corresponding reviews (n=16,561) were notably fewer compared with their American counterparts (n=220 HMAs and n=100,125 reviews). The overall satisfaction rate among HMA users was 75.22% (87,773/116,686), with Chinese HMAs demonstrating a higher satisfaction rate (13,866/16,561, 83.73%) compared with that for American HMAs (73,907/100,125, 73.81%). Chinese users primarily focus on reliability (2165/16,561, 13.07%) and measurement accuracy (2091/16,561, 12.63%) when considering HMAs, whereas American users prioritize BP tracking (17,285/100,125, 17.26%) and data synchronization (12,837/100,125, 12.82%). Seven factors (easy to use: P<.001; measurement accuracy: P<.001; compatibility: P<.001; cost: P<.001; heart rate detection function: P=.02; blood pressure tracking function: P<.001; and interface design: P=.01) significantly influenced the positive deviation (PD) of Chinese HMA user satisfaction, while 8 factors (easy to use: P<.001; reliability: P<.001; measurement accuracy: P<.001; compatibility: P<.001; cost: P<.001; interface design: P<.001; real-time: P<.001; and data privacy: P=.001) affected the negative deviation (ND). Notably, BP tracking had the greatest effect on PD (β=.354, P<.001), while cost had the most significant impact on ND (β=3.703, P<.001). All 12 factors (easy to use: P<.001; blood pressure tracking function: P<.001; data synchronization: P<.001; blood pressure management effect: P<.001; heart rate detection function: P<.001; data sharing: P<.001; reliability: P<.001; compatibility: P<.001; interface design: P<.001; advertisement distribution: P<.001; measurement accuracy: P<.001; and cost: P<.001) significantly influenced the PD and ND of American HMA user satisfaction. Notably, BP tracking had the greatest effect on PD (β=0.312, P<.001), while data synchronization had the most significant impact on ND (β=2.662, P<.001). In addition, the influencing factors of PD and ND in user satisfaction of HMA in China and the United States are different. CONCLUSIONS: User satisfaction factors varied significantly between different countries, showing considerable asymmetry. For Chinese HMA users, ease of use and interface design emerged as motivational factors, while factors such as cost, measurement accuracy, and compatibility primarily contributed to user dissatisfaction. For American HMA users, motivational factors were ease of use, BP tracking, BP management effect, interface design, measurement accuracy, and cost. Moreover, users expect features such as data sharing, synchronization, software reliability, compatibility, heart rate detection, and nonintrusive advertisement distribution. Tailored experience plans should be devised for different user groups in various countries to address these diverse preferences and requirements.
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 | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".