Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35099398›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2022

User Experience, Engagement, and Popularity in Mental Health Apps: Secondary Analysis of App Analytics and Expert App Reviews.

Benjamin T Kaveladze, Akash R Wasil, John B Bunyi, Veronica Ramirez, Stephen M Schueller

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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.

Benjamin T KaveladzeDepartment of Psychological Science, University of California, Irvine, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7289-5040
Akash R WasilDepartment of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0326-0364
John B BunyiDepartment of Psychological Science, University of California, Irvine, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6647-3893
Veronica RamirezDepartment of Psychological Science, University of California, Irvine, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5083-196X
Stephen M SchuellerDepartment of Psychological Science, University of California, Irvine, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1003-0399

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUser experience and engagement are critical elements of mental health apps' abilities to support users. However, work examining the relationships among user experience, engagement, and popularity has been limited. Understanding how user experience relates to engagement with and popularity of mental health apps can demonstrate the relationship between subjective and objective measures of app use. In turn, this may inform efforts to develop more effective and appealing mental health apps and ensure that they reach wide audiences.

objectiveWe aimed to examine the relationship among subjective measures of user experience, objective measures of popularity, and engagement in mental health apps.

methodsWe conducted a preregistered secondary data analysis in a sample of 56 mental health apps. To measure user experience, we used expert ratings on the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and consumer ratings from the Apple App Store and Google Play. To measure engagement, we acquired estimates of monthly active users (MAU) and user retention. To measure app popularity, we used download count, total app revenue, and MAU again.

resultsMARS total score was moderately positively correlated with app-level revenue (Kendall rank [T]=0.30, P=.002), MAU (T=0.39, P<.001), and downloads (T=0.41, P<.001). However, the MARS total score and each of its subscales (Engagement, Functionality, Aesthetics, and Information) showed extremely small correlations with user retention 1, 7, and 30 days after downloading. Furthermore, the total MARS score only correlated with app store rating at T=0.12, which, at P=.20, did not meet our threshold for significance.

conclusionsMore popular mental health apps receive better ratings of user experience than less popular ones. However, user experience does not predict sustained engagement with mental health apps. Thus, mental health app developers and evaluators need to better understand user experience and engagement, as well as to define sustained engagement, what leads to it, and how to create products that achieve it. This understanding might be supported by better collaboration between industry and academic teams to advance a science of engagement.

Indexed as

digital mental healthengagementmental health appsuser experienceuser retention

Identifiers

PMID35099398
PMCPMC8844980

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.