Cited by 107Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

Theoretical Advancements in mHealth: A Systematic Review of Mobile Apps

Open access
Chib, Arul, Lin, Sapphire H.·2018·Journal of Health Communication

Abstract

There are now few hundred thousand healthcare apps, yet there is a gap in our understanding of the theoretical mechanisms for which, and how, technological features translate into improved healthcare outcomes. In particular, the technological convergence, within mobile health (mHealth) apps, of the processes of mass and interpersonal communication, and human-computer interaction requires greater parsing in the literature. This paper analyzed 85 empirical studies on mHealth apps using the Input-Mechanism-Output model. We found in the literature that, firstly, there is a greater emphasis on technological inputs (87%) of accessibility, usability, usage, and data quality, than health outputs (52%) such as system process efficiencies and individual level behavioral or health outcomes. Secondly, there is little evidence of explanatory mechanisms (19%) of how the effects of mHealth apps are achieved. While we believe that successful apps would require research that incorporates technological inputs, theoretical mechanisms and health outputs, such studies are a rarity (n = 3). There is a minor increase in rigor with randomized control trials (n = 5), and a preponderance of discussion around social influence (n = 8) and gamification (n = 7), albeit in a scattered manner. We discuss the implications of the trend towards socialization and gamification findings in terms of future research, particularly in terms of study design guided by theoretical mechanisms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10810730.2018.1544676

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chib, A., & Lin, S. H.
Affiliations
Nanyang Technological University (SG)
Corresponding author
Chib, Arul
Venue
Journal of Health Communication
Published
2018-11-02
Volume
23
Issue
10-11
Pages
909-955
ISSN
  • 1081-0730 (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0415
OpenAlex
W2900899757
Cited by
107
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 4
FWCI
1.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Health Communication (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
Keywords
mobile health apps, mobile health, theoretical mechanisms, health outcomes, social influence, gamification, socialization, human-computer interaction, app usability, app accessibility, research design
MeSH terms
Telemedicine, Mobile Applications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review