Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27742604›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2016

A Review of Persuasive Principles in Mobile Apps for Chronic Arthritis Patients: Opportunities for Improvement.

Jonas Geuens, Thijs Willem Swinnen, Rene Westhovens, Kurt de Vlam, Luc Geurts, Vero Vanden Abeele

Registry-linked trialOpen 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. It is linked to trial NCT03517371 (Walking and mHealth to Increase Participation in Parkinson Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
10.9field-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.

NCT03517371 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Walking and mHealth to Increase Participation in Parkinson Disease

TypeinterventionalSponsorBoston University Charles River CampusRan2019 to 2024Enrolled140ConditionsParkinson DiseaseArmsmHealth delivered exercise program, Exercise only
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Patient Perspectives on a Digital Mobile Health Application for RA.Open access rheumatology : research and reviews · 2021
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

KU Leuven · BEUniversitair Ziekenhuis Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic arthritis (CA), an umbrella term for inflammatory rheumatic and other musculoskeletal diseases, is highly prevalent. Effective disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for CA are available, with the exception of osteoarthritis, but require a long-term commitment of patients to comply with the medication regimen and management program as well as a tight follow-up by the treating physician and health professionals. Additionally, patients are advised to participate in physical exercise programs. Adherence to exercises and physical activity programs is often very low. Patients would benefit from support to increase medication compliance as well as compliance to the physical exercise programs. To address these shortcomings, health apps for CA patients have been created. These mobile apps assist patients in self-management of overall health measures, health prevention, and disease management. By including persuasive principles designed to reinforce, change, or shape attitudes or behaviors, health apps can transform into support tools that motivate and stimulate users to achieve or keep up with target behavior, also called persuasive systems. However, the extent to which health apps for CA patients consciously and successfully employ such persuasive principles remains unknown.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the number and type of persuasive principles present in current health apps for CA patients.

methodsA review of apps for arthritis patients was conducted across the three major app stores (Google Play, Apple App Store, and Windows Phone Store). Collected apps were coded according to 37 persuasive principles, based on an altered version of the Persuasive System Design taxonomy of Oinas-Kukkonen and Harjuma and the taxonomy of Behavior Change Techniques of Michie and Abraham. In addition, user ratings, number of installs, and price of the apps were also coded.

resultsWe coded 28 apps. On average, 5.8 out of 37 persuasive principles were used in each app. The most used category of persuasive principles was System Credibility with an average of 2.6 principles. Task Support was the second most used, with an average of 2.3 persuasive principles. Next was Dialogue Support with an average of 0.5 principles. Social Support was last with an average of 0.01 persuasive principles only.

conclusionsCurrent health apps for CA patients would benefit from adding Social Support techniques (eg, social media, user fora) and extending Dialogue Support techniques (eg, rewards, praise). The addition of automated tracking of health-related parameters (eg, physical activity, step count) could further reduce the effort for CA patients to manage their disease and thus increase Task Support. Finally, apps for health could benefit from a more evidence-based approach, both in developing the app as well as ensuring that content can be verified as scientifically proven, which will result in enhanced System Credibility.

Indexed as

chronic arthritismobile applicationspersuasive technology

Identifiers

PMID27742604
PMCPMC5083846
OpenAlexW2531425100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.