| Literature DB >> 31127714 |
Melissa Aji1,2, Christopher Gordon2,3,4, Dorian Peters5, Delwyn Bartlett3,6, Rafael A Calvo5,7, Khushnood Naqshbandi5, Nick Glozier1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) apps demonstrate promise for improving sleep at scale. End-user engagement is a prerequisite for sustained use and effectiveness.Entities:
Keywords: mHealth; mobile apps; sleep
Year: 2019 PMID: 31127714 PMCID: PMC6707571 DOI: 10.2196/13895
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Ment Health ISSN: 2368-7959
Figure 1Thematic schema.
Sociodemographic characteristics of respondents (n=167).
| Variable | n (%) | |
| Female | 147 (88.0) | |
| Male | 18 (10.8) | |
| Prefer not to say | 2 (1.2) | |
| 18-30 | 48 (28.7) | |
| 31-40 | 55 (32.9) | |
| 41-50 | 33 (19.7) | |
| 51+ | 31 (18.6) | |
| Secondary school | 46 (27.5) | |
| Diploma | 25 (15.0) | |
| Trade certificate | 29 (17.4) | |
| Bachelor’s degree | 45 (26.9) | |
| Postgraduate degree | 22 (13.2) | |
| Full-time | 53 (31.7) | |
| Part-time | 58 (34.7) | |
| Student | 17 (10.2) | |
| Unemployed | 20 (12.0) | |
| Retired | 11 (6.6) | |
| Other | 16 (9.6) | |
aPercentages do not add up to 100% as respondents were allowed multiple responses.
Mobile phone, wearable device, and app usage (N=167).
| Variable | n (%) | ||
| Samsung | 73 (43.7) | ||
| Apple | 70 (41.9) | ||
| Other | 24 (14.4) | ||
| Yes | 54 (32.3) | ||
| No | 113 (67.7) | ||
| Fitbit | 26 (48.1) | ||
| Apple | 10 (18.5) | ||
| Other | 18 (33.4) | ||
| Fitness | 45 (83.3) | ||
| Health | 36 (66.7) | ||
| Communication | 23 (42.6) | ||
| Step tracking | 48 (88.9) | ||
| Heart rate monitoring | 39 (72.2) | ||
| Sleep tracking | 35 (64.8) | ||
| Yes | 94 (56.2) | ||
| No | 73 (43.7) | ||
aPercentages do not add up to 100% as respondents were allowed multiple responses.
Preferences in sleep app features (abridged; N=167).
| Features | n (%) | High insomnia (Insomnia Severity Index 17+) | Low insomnia | |||
| .32 | ||||||
| Little to no importance | 19 (11.4) | 9 (5) | 10 (6) | |||
| Important | 148 (88.6) | 88 (53) | 60 (36) | |||
| .11 | ||||||
| Little to no importance | 60 (35.9) | 30 (18) | 30 (18) | |||
| Important | 107 (64.1) | 67 (40) | 40 (24) | |||
| .45 | ||||||
| Little to no importance | 138 (82.6) | 82 (19) | 56 (34) | |||
| Important | 29 (17.4) | 15 (9) | 17 (8) | |||
| <.001 | ||||||
| Little to no importance | 51 (30.5) | 20 (12) | 31 (19) | |||
| Important | 116 (69.5) | 77 (46) | 39 (23) | |||
| .58 | ||||||
| Little to no importance | 84 (50.3) | 47 (28) | 37 (22) | |||
| Important | 83 (49.7) | 50 (30) | 33(20) | |||
| .14 | ||||||
| Little to no importance | 54 (32.3) | 27 (16) | 27 (16) | |||
| Important | 113 (67.7) | 70 (42) | 43 (36) | |||
| .49 | ||||||
| Little to no importance | 110 (65.9) | 66 (40) | 44 (26) | |||
| Important | 57 (34.1) | 31 (19) | 26 (16) | |||
Figure 2Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram of selected apps.
Figure 3Bar graph presenting frequency of mentions for app content.
Figure 4Bar graph presenting frequency of mentions for functionality.