| Literature DB >> 30389651 |
Patrick S Olsen1, Kate F Plourde2, Christine Lasway3, Eric van Praag4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many mobile health (mHealth) interventions have the potential to generate and store vast amounts of system-generated participant interaction data that could provide insight into user engagement, programmatic strengths, and areas that need improvement to maximize efficacy. However, despite the popularity of mHealth interventions, there is little documentation on how to use these data to monitor and improve programming or to evaluate impact.Entities:
Keywords: data analysis; mHealth; mobile phone; short message service; user engagement
Year: 2018 PMID: 30389651 PMCID: PMC6238099 DOI: 10.2196/10190
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth ISSN: 2291-5222 Impact factor: 4.773
Definitions pertaining to user engagement attributes.
| Dimensions | Indicator | Definition |
| Environment [ | Location | Sum of unique requests for all wards per district |
| Interaction [ | New users | The number of unique users that accessed the system from September 2013 to August 2016 |
| Return users | The number of unique users that accessed the system at least once per month for 2 or more months | |
| Repeat users | The number of unique users that accessed the system more than once per month (does not include users who accessed the same menu items twice during the same month) | |
| Acquisition | Users (return and new) that accessed the system each month | |
| Depth [ | Activation | Percent users who requested a submenu after receiving the main menu (indicates navigation through m4RH main menus) |
| Active use | Percent of activated users who request content keywords after receiving submenu prompt | |
| Loyalty [ | Conversion | Percent of users who become active users (ie, request content) |
| Churn | Percent users lost (uses that do not become active users) |
Frequency of wards requested per district in Tanzania from September 2013 to August 2016.
| District | Value (N=7737), n (%) |
| Dar es Salaam | 3939 (50.91) |
| Dodoma | 747 (9.65) |
| Mwanza | 659 (8.52) |
| Arusha | 588 (7.60) |
| Mbeya | 302 (3.90) |
| Kigoma | 261 (3.37) |
| Tanga | 193 (2.49) |
| Njombe | 189 (2.44) |
| Iringa | 174 (2.25) |
| Geita | 170 (2.20) |
| Morogoro | 158 (2.04) |
| Pwani | 139 (1.80) |
| Simiyu | 84 (1.09) |
| Ruvuma | 68 (0.88) |
| Singida | 52 (0.67) |
| Mjini Magharibi | 13 (0.17) |
| Mara | 1 (0.01) |
Total interactions by new and return users.
| Users | Year, n (%) | Total (N=3,673,702), n (%) | ||||
| 2013 (N=280,304) | 2014 (N=923,661) | 2015 (N=1,475,428) | 2016 (N=994,309) | |||
| New users | 43,746 (15.61) | 116,654 (12.63) | 151,903 (10.30) | 97,465 (9.80) | 409,768 (11.15) | |
| Return users | 4731 (1.69) | 36,887 (4.00) | 70,703 (4.80) | 38,594 (3.88) | 150,915 (4.11) | |
Figure 1Overall user access time in 3-hour increments.
Figure 2User access time, hourly by year.
Frequency of clinic menu requested from unique interactions.
| Frequency | Unique visitors (N=409,768), n (%) |
| 0 | 386,532 (94.33) |
| 1 | 21,292 (5.20) |
| 2 | 1635 (0.40) |
| 3 | 246 (0.06) |
| ≥4 | 63 (0.02) |
Activation and active use among unique users.
| Activation and active use | Year | Total (N=409,768) | |||||||||
| 2013 (N=43,746) | 2014 (N=116,654) | 2015 (N=151,903) | 2016 (N=97,465) | ||||||||
| Activation, n (%) | 11,470 (26.22) | 34,830 (29.86) | 77,839 (51.24) | 64,765 (66.45) | 188,904 (46.10) | ||||||
| Seek menu content, n (%) | 11,246 (25.71) | 33,551 (29.76) | 67,725 (44.58) | 56,696 (58.17) | 169,218 (41.30) | ||||||
| Active use rate, n (%) | 11,246 (98.05) | 33,551 (96.33) | 67,725 (87.01) | 56,696 (87.54) | 169,218 (89.58) | ||||||
| Keywords per month, mean (SD) | 7.52 (6.09) | 7.14 (5.96) | 4.92 (6.23) | 5.13 (6.49) | 5.56 (6.34) | ||||||
| About family planning | N/Aa | N/A | 36,067 (23.74) | 32,380 (33.22) | 68,447 (16.70) | ||||||
| Family planning methods | 30,492 (69.70) | 79,438 (68.10) | 70,379 (46.33) | 36,113 (37.05) | 216,422 (52.82) | ||||||
| Youth | N/A | N/A | 24,317 (16.01) | 21,920 (22.49) | 46,237 (11.28) | ||||||
| Role model stories | 10,185 (23.28) | 27,580 (23.64) | 17,438 (11.48) | 12,674 (13.00) | 67,877 (16.56) | ||||||
| Clinic | 402 (0.92) | 8,835 (7.57) | 7,474 (4.92) | 6,525 (6.69) | 23,236 (5.67) | ||||||
aN/A=not applicable (“About family planning” and “Youth” menus not implemented until 2015).
Information requested on different pregnancy prevention methods among unique users.
| Pregnancy prevention methods, n (%) | Year | Total (N=409,768) | |||
| 2013 (N=43,746) | 2014 (N=116,654) | 2015 (N=151,903) | 2016 (N=97,465) | ||
| Natural family planning | 13,451 (30.75) | 33,827 (29.00) | 33,126 (21.81) | 18,565 (19.05) | 98,969 (24.15) |
| Condom | 9,332 (21.33) | 24,807 (21.27) | 21,263 (14.00) | 10,586 (10.86) | 65,988 (16.10) |
| Lactational amenorrhea method | 8,263 (18.89) | 22,009 (18.87) | 23,258 (15.31) | 13,163 (13.51) | 66,693 (16.28) |
| Emergency contraception | 8,655 (19.78) | 21,778 (18.67) | 18,264 (12.02) | 9,167 (9.41) | 57,864 (14.12) |
| Permanent | 8,270 (18.90) | 21,909 (18.78) | 16,952 (11.16) | 8,009 (8.22) | 55,140 (13.46) |
| Implant | 7,462 (17.06) | 20,858 (17.88) | 17,336 (11.41) | 8,680 (8.91) | 54,336 (13.26) |
| Injectable | 6,786 (15.51) | 18,903 (16.20) | 17,050 (11.22) | 8,593 (8.82) | 51,332 (12.53) |
| Pills | 5,865 (13.41) | 16,208 (13.89) | 13,183 (8.68) | 6,344 (6.51) | 41,600 (10.15) |
| Intrauterine contraceptive device | 5,027 (11.49) | 13,633 (11.69) | 12,001 (7.90) | 6,307 (6.47) | 36,968 (9.02) |
Percent distribution of information requested on youth content among unique users.
| Percent distribution, n (%) | Year | Total (N=249,368) | |
| 2015 (N=151,903) | 2016 (N=97,465) | ||
| Puberty | 8,366 (5.51) | 7,677 (7.88) | 16,043 (6.43) |
| About sex | 18,144 (11.94) | 16,398 (16.82) | 34,542 (13.85) |
| Choices | 6,756 (4.45) | 6,482 (6.65) | 13,238 (5.31) |
Promotion periods per year and interactions among new and return users.
| Promotion periods and interactions | Year | Total | ||||
| 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | |||
| Promotional months per year, n | 4 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 15 | |
| New users (N=409,768) | 43,746 (100) | 99,012 (84.88) | 32,746 (21.56) | N/Aa | 175,504 (42.83) | |
| Return users (N=150,915) | 4,731 (100) | 31,084 (84.27) | 6,877 (9.73) | N/A | 42,692 (28.29) | |
aN/A=not applicable (No promotional periods during 2016).
Percentage of return and repeat users per year.
| Rates, n (%) | Year | Total (N=409,768) | |||
| 2013 (N=43,746) | 2014 (N=116,654) | 2015 (N=151,903) | 2016 (N=97,465) | ||
| Return users | 4,731 (10.81) | 36,887 (31.62) | 70,703 (46.54) | 38,594 (39.60) | 150,915 (36.83) |
| Repeat users | 30,685 (70.14) | 80,542 (69.04) | 100,749 (67.64) | 64,112 (65.78) | 278,088 (67.86) |
| Conversion rate | 11,470 (25.71) | 33,551 (28.76) | 67,725 (44.58) | 56,696 (58.17) | 169,218 (41.30) |
Figure 3Mobile for Reproductive Health respondent progression. m4RH: Mobile for Reproductive Health; SMS: short message service.