ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021
Smartphone Users' Persuasion Knowledge in the Context of Consumer mHealth Apps: Qualitative Study.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preliminary Support for a Technology-Enhanced Suicide Prevention Intervention for College Students: Mixed Methods Preimplementation Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- A choice based conjoint analysis of mobile healthcare application preferences among physicians, patients, and individuals.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Private commercial companies sharing health-relevant consumer data with health researchers in sub-Saharan Africa: an ethical exploration.Policy studies (Policy Studies Institute) · 2024Article
- Importance-performance analysis in fitness apps. A study from the viewpoint of gender and age.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Smartphones dependency risk analysis using machine-learning predictive models.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- The Recent Advances of Mobile Healthcare in Cardiology Practice.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2022Review
- Article
- A survey of women's experiences of using period tracker applications: Attitudes, ovulation prediction and how the accuracy of the app in predicting period start dates affects their feelings and behaviours.Women's health (London, England)Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPersuasion knowledge, commonly referred to as advertising literacy, is a cognitive dimension that embraces recognition of advertising, its source and audience, and understanding of advertisers' persuasive and selling intents as well as tactics. There is little understanding of users' awareness of organizations that develop or sponsor mobile health (mHealth) apps, especially in light of personal data privacy. Persuasion knowledge or recognition of a supporting organization's presence, characteristics, competencies, intents, and persuasion tactics are crucial to investigate because app users have the right to know about entities that support apps and make informed decisions about app usage. The abundance of free consumer mHealth apps, especially those in the area of fitness, often makes it difficult for users to identify apps' dual purposes, which may be related to not only helping the public manage health but also promoting the supporting organization itself and collecting users' information for further consumer targeting by third parties.
objectiveThis study aims to investigate smartphone users' awareness of mHealth apps' affiliations with 3 different types of supporting organizations (commercial, government, and nonprofit); differences in users' persuasion knowledge and mHealth app quality and credibility evaluations related to each of the 3 organization types; and users' coping mechanisms for dealing with personal information management within consumer mHealth apps.
methodsIn-depth semistructured interviews were conducted with 25 smartphone users from a local community in midwestern United States. Interviews were thematically analyzed using inductive and deductive approaches.
resultsParticipants indicated that their awareness of and interest in mHealth app-supporting organizations were secondary to the app's health management functions. After being probed, participants showed a high level of persuasion knowledge regarding the types of app-supporting organizations and their promotional intents. They thought that commercial companies sponsored mHealth apps mostly as entertainment tools, whereas noncommercial entities sponsored mHealth apps for users' education. They assigned self-promotional motives to commercial organizations; however, they associated commercial mHealth apps with good quality and functioning. Noncommercial entities were perceived as more credible. Participants were concerned about losing control over personal information within mHealth apps supported by different organizations. They used alternative digital identities to protect themselves from privacy invasion and advertising spam. They were willing to trade some personal information for high-quality commercial mHealth apps. There was a sense of fatalism in discussing privacy risks linked to mHealth app usage, and some participants did not perceive the risks to be serious.
conclusionsThe discussion of and recommendations for the safe and ethical use of mHealth apps associated with organizations' promotional strategies and personal data protection are provided to ensure users' awareness of and enhanced control over digitalized personal information flows. The theoretical implications are discussed in the context of the Persuasion Knowledge Model and dual-processing theories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.