MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405516859 · doi:10.2196/56897

When and Why Adults Abandon Lifestyle Behavior and Mental Health Mobile Apps: Scoping Review

2024· article· en· W4405516859 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patrick G Kidman, Rachel Curtis, Amanda Watson, Carol Maher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Internet Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOMental healthAbandonment (legal)MEDLINEPsychologyScopusObservational studyQualitative researchMedicineGerontologyApplied psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: With 1 in 3 adults globally living with chronic conditions and the rise in smartphone ownership, mobile health apps have become a prominent tool for managing lifestyle-related health behaviors and mental health. However, high rates of app abandonment pose challenges to their effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: We explored the abandonment of apps used for managing physical activity, diet, alcohol, smoking, and mental health in free-living conditions, examining the duration of app use before abandonment and the underlying reasons. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted based on the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines and eligibility criteria were designed according to the SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type) framework. In total, 4 databases were searched (MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and PsycINFO) to identify quantitative and qualitative studies with outcome measures related to app abandonment in adults with free-living conditions, including reasons for abandonment and duration of use, for mobile apps related to WHO (World Health Organization) modifiable health behaviors and mental health. The included studies' risk of bias was appraised based on the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) and COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklists. To enable data synthesis across different methodologies, app domains, demographic data, and outcome measures were categorized. Results are presented in 2 sections: quantitatively in a scatterplot to understand when users abandon apps and qualitatively through basic qualitative content analysis to identify the underlying reasons. RESULTS: Eighteen eligible studies (525,824 participants) published between 2014 and 2022, predominantly from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany, were identified. Findings revealed a curvilinear pattern of app abandonment, with sharper abandonment soon after acquisition, followed by a slowing rate of abandonment over time. Taken together, a median of 70% of users discontinued use within the first 100 days. The abandonment rate appeared to vary by app domain, with apps focusing on alcohol and smoking exhibiting faster abandonment, and physical activity and mental health exhibiting longer usage durations. In total, 22 unique reasons for abandonment were organized into six categories: (1) technical and functional issues, (2) privacy concerns, (3) poor user experience, (4) content and features, (5) time and financial costs, and (6) evolving user needs and goals. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the complex nature of health app abandonment and the need for an improved understanding of user engagement over time, underscoring the importance of addressing various factors contributing to abandonment, from technical issues to evolving user needs. Our findings also emphasize the need for longitudinal studies and a consistent definition of app abandonment to better understand and mitigate this phenomenon, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of health apps in supporting public health initiatives.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.568
Teacher spread0.463 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Internet ResearchSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207