Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29875088›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2018

Implementing Systematically Collected User Feedback to Increase User Retention in a Mobile App for Self-Management of Low Back Pain: Retrospective Cohort Study.

Innocent Clement, Andreas Lorenz, Bernhard Ulm, Anne Plidschun, Stephan Huber

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Digital therapeutics in pain medicine.The Korean journal of pain · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Evaluation of mHealth Applications Related to Cardiovascular Diseases: a Systematic Review.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2020
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors.

Innocent ClementKaia Health Software, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0906-2278
Andreas LorenzDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University Hospital of Munich (LMU), Campus Grosshadern, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1517-2150
Bernhard UlmUnabhängige statistische Beratung Bernhard Ulm, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9396-2510
Anne PlidschunKaia Health Software, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4379-5790
Stephan HuberKaia Health Software, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6332-688X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPromising first results for Kaia, a mobile app digitalizing multidisciplinary rehabilitation for low back pain, were recently published. It remains unclear whether the implementation of user feedback in an updated version of this app leads to desired effects in terms of increased app usage and clinical outcomes.

objectiveThe aim is to elucidate the effect on user retention and clinical outcomes of an updated version of the Kaia app where user feedback was included during development.

methodsUser feedback of the initial app versions (0.x) was collected in a quality management system and systematically analyzed to define requirements of a new version. For this study, the anonymized data of Kaia users was analyzed retrospectively and users were grouped depending on the available version at the time of the sign-up (0.x vs 1.x). The effect on the duration of activity of users in the app, the number of completed exercises of each type, and user-reported pain levels were compared.

resultsOverall, data of 1251 users fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 196 users signed up using version 0.x and 1055 users signed up with version 1.x. There were significant differences in the demographic parameters for both groups. A log-rank test showed no significant differences for the duration of activity in the app between groups (P=.31). Users signing up during availability of the 1.x version completed significantly more exercises of each type in the app (physical exercises: 0.x mean 1.99, SD 1.61 units/week vs 1.x mean 3.15, SD1.72 units/week; P<.001; mindfulness exercises: 0.x mean 1.36, SD 1.43 units/week vs 1.x mean 2.42, SD 1.82 units/week; P<.001; educational content: 0.x mean 1.51, SD 1.42 units/week vs 1.x mean 2.71, SD 1.89 units/week; P<.001). This translated into a stronger decrease in user-reported pain levels in versions 1.x (F1,1233=7.084, P=.008).

conclusionsDespite the limitations of retrospective cohort studies, this study indicates that the implementation of systematically collected user feedback during development of updated versions can contribute to improvements in terms of frequency of use and potentially even clinical endpoints such as pain level. The clinical efficiency of the Kaia app needs to be validated in prospective controlled trials to exclude bias.

Indexed as

applow back painmHealthquality managementretrospective cohort studyself-managementusabilityuser feedback

Identifiers

PMID29875088
PMCPMC6010841

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.