MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393242741 · doi:10.2196/50851

Understanding Patient Perspectives on the Use of Gamification and Incentives in mHealth Apps to Improve Medication Adherence: Qualitative Study

2024· article· en· W4393242741 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Steven Tran, Lorraine Smith, Stephen Carter

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedication Adherence and Compliance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsmHealthIncentiveQualitative researchMedication adherencePsychologyInternet privacyMedicineComputer sciencePsychological interventionNursingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Medication nonadherence remains a significant health and economic burden in many high-income countries. Emerging smartphone interventions have started to use features such as gamification and financial incentives with varying degrees of effectiveness on medication adherence and health outcomes. A more consistent approach to applying these features, informed by patient perspectives, may result in more predictable and beneficial results from this type of intervention. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study aims to identify patient perspectives on the use of gamification and financial incentives in mobile health (mHealth) apps for medication adherence in Australian patients taking medication for chronic conditions. METHODS: A total of 19 participants were included in iterative semistructured web-based focus groups conducted between May and December 2022. The facilitator used exploratory prompts relating to mHealth apps, gamification, and financial incentives, along with concepts raised from previous focus groups. Transcriptions were independently coded to develop a set of themes. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: purpose-driven design, trust-based standards, and personal choice. All participants acknowledged gamification and financial incentives as potentially effective features in mHealth apps for medication adherence. However, they also indicated that the effectiveness heavily depended on implementation and execution. Major concerns relating to gamification and financial incentives were perceived trivialization and potential for medication abuse, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The study's findings provide a foundation for developers seeking to apply these novel features in an app intervention for a general cohort of patients. However, the study highlights the need for standards for mHealth apps for medication adherence, with particular attention to the use of gamification and financial incentives. Future research with patients and stakeholders across the mHealth app ecosystem should be explored to formalize and validate a set of standards or framework.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.346
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.131 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicMedication Adherence and ComplianceFrench-language works237,207