Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40828800›Full record

ReviewPLOS digital health2025

Personalizing mobile applications for health based on user profiles: A preference matrix from a scoping review.

Laëtitia Gosetto, Gilles Falquet, Fréderic Ehrler

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Laëtitia GosettoGeneva School of Economics and Management, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9432-2160
Gilles FalquetGeneva School of Economics and Management, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Fréderic EhrlerInformation Systems Directorate, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9734-3242

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The World Health Organization identifies unhealthy behaviors, such as smoking, as significant risk factors contributing to mortality and morbidity, underscoring the necessity to adopt healthier habits. The increasing prevalence of health applications (apps) presents opportunities for promoting healthier lifestyles. Notably, personalized mobile health (mHealth) interventions can enhance user engagement and their effectiveness. Our scoping review aims to contribute to guide the personalization of mHealth interventions for health behavior change by defining which mechanisms should be favored for a given user profile. Online databases were searched to identify articles published between 2008 and 2024 describing the topic of personalization, behavior change apps, and mobile app mechanisms. Of 1806 articles identified, 18 articles were retained. We then categorized the mechanisms and user profiles described in the selected articles into existing taxonomies. Finally, the relationship between the user profiles and mechanisms were reported. The four user profiles identified included personality and gamer profiles. Twenty-one mechanisms extracted from the articles were categorized as behavioral change techniques, gamification, or mobile app mechanisms, with limited numbers of preference relations between mechanisms and user profiles. The relation matrix was not complete and covered only 51% of possible relations: game mechanisms, 30%; behavioral change techniques, 16%; and app mechanisms, 5%. Two user profiles, the Big Five (18%) and Hexad scale (20%), covered 38% of relations, whereas the two remaining user profiles contributed to the remaining 13%. Social mechanisms, including competition, cooperation, and social comparison, exhibit strong connections to user profiles and are pivotal in persuasive system design. Self-efficacy theory links mechanisms such as self-monitoring, social persuasion, and rewards to behavior change. However, only 51% of potential relationships between profiles and mechanisms were identified. Adapting mHealth content based on user profiles requires reliable personality assessments and privacy-conscious data collection to enable personalized, profile-specific interventions for improved outcomes.

Identifiers

PMID40828800
PMCPMC12364320

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.