Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27220371›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2016

User Preferences for Content, Features, and Style for an App to Reduce Harmful Drinking in Young Adults: Analysis of User Feedback in App Stores and Focus Group Interviews.

Joanna Milward, Zarnie Khadjesari, Stephanie Fincham-Campbell, Paolo Deluca, Rod Watson, Colin Drummond

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Patient preferences for visualization of longitudinal patient-reported outcomes data.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joanna MilwardAddictions Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. joanna.milward@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6756-6410
King's College London · GB

Funding

Department of Health HTA/13/86/03Department of Health RP-PG-0609-10162Medical Research Council G0701681Medical Research Council G0701818
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic screening and brief intervention (eSBI) is effective in reducing weekly alcohol consumption when delivered by a computer. Mobile phone apps demonstrate promise in delivering eSBI; however, few have been designed with an evidence-based and user-informed approach.

objectiveThis study aims to explore from a user perspective, preferences for content, appearance, and operational features to inform the design of a mobile phone app for reducing quantity and frequency of drinking in young adults engaged in harmful drinking (18-30 year olds).

methodsPhase 1 included a review of user reviews of available mobile phone apps that support a reduction in alcohol consumption. Apps were identified on iTunes and Google Play and were categorized into alcohol reduction support, entertainment, blood alcohol content measurement (BAC), or other. eSBI apps with ≥18 user reviews were subject to a content analysis, which coded praise, criticism, and recommendations for app content, functionality, and esthetics. Phase 2 included four focus groups with young adults drinking at harmful levels and residing in South London to explore their views on existing eSBI apps and preferences for future content, functionality, and appearance. Detailed thematic analysis of the data was undertaken.

resultsIn Phase 1, of the 1584 apps extracted, 201 were categorized as alcohol reduction, 154 as BAC calculators, 509 as entertainment, and 720 as other. We classified 32 apps as eSBI apps. Four apps had ≥18 user reviews: Change for Life Drinks Tracker, Drinksmeter, Drinkaware, and Alcohol Units Calculator. The highest proportion of content praises were for information and feedback provided in the apps (12/27, 44%), followed by praise for the monitoring features (5/27, 19%). Many (8/12, 67%) criticisms were for the drinking diary; all of these were related to difficulty entering drinks. Over half (18/32, 56%) of functionality criticisms were descriptions of software bugs, and over half of those (10/18, 56%) were for app crashing or freezing. Drinksmeter and Alcohol Units Calculator were the most highly praised apps overall (23/57 and 22/57; 39% of praise overall). In Phase 2, two main themes were identified. The meaningfulness theme reflected how young adults thought apps needed to be tailored to the interests and values of their age group, particularly emphasizing content and feedback around broader health and well-being factors such as exercise, diet, and image. The community theme suggested that young adults want to be able to engage with other app users, both in groups of friends and with online users for motivation and support.

conclusionsTargeted and relevant information and feedback, in addition to easy-to-use monitoring tools, were found to be important features of a mobile phone app to support a reduction in drinking. Future app development should consider tailoring all app aspects to the needs of young adults, considering broader well-being monitoring tools and online community functions.

Indexed as

alcoholappsbrief interventiondigitaldrinkingfocus groupmhealthsmartphoneyoung adults

Identifiers

PMID27220371
PMCPMC4897297
OpenAlexW2404831560

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.