Cited by 162Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsMindfulness and Compassion Interventions

The Effect of Timing and Frequency of Push Notifications on Usage of a Smartphone-Based Stress Management Intervention: An Exploratory Trial

Open access
Morrison, Leanne G., Hargood, Charlie, Pejovic, Veljko, Geraghty, Adam W. A., Lloyd, Scott, Goodman, Natalie, Michaelides, Danius T., Weston, Anna +3 more·2017·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Push notifications offer a promising strategy for enhancing engagement with smartphone-based health interventions. Intelligent sensor-driven machine learning models may improve the timeliness of notifications by adapting delivery to a user's current context (e.g. location). This exploratory mixed-methods study examined the potential impact of timing and frequency on notification response and usage of Healthy Mind, a smartphone-based stress management intervention. 77 participants were randomised to use one of three versions of Healthy Mind that provided: intelligent notifications; daily notifications within pre-defined time frames; or occasional notifications within pre-defined time frames. Notification response and Healthy Mind usage were automatically recorded. Telephone interviews explored participants' experiences of using Healthy Mind. Participants in the intelligent and daily conditions viewed (d = .47, .44 respectively) and actioned (d = .50, .43 respectively) more notifications compared to the occasional group. Notification group had no meaningful effects on percentage of notifications viewed or usage of Healthy Mind. No meaningful differences were indicated between the intelligent and non-intelligent groups. Our findings suggest that frequent notifications may encourage greater exposure to intervention content without deterring engagement, but adaptive tailoring of notification timing does not always enhance their use. Hypotheses generated from this study require testing in future work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN67177737.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0169162

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Studies that ranked high for selective reporting bias tended to report only user satisfaction data and treatment adherence, despite their methods considering collection and assessment of psychiatric scale data and other effectiveness outcomes.

    “The studies that ranked high for selective reporting bias tended to report only user satisfaction data and treatment adherence, despite their methods considering the collection and assessment of psychiatric scale data and other effectiveness outcomes (29, 76, 79, 85–88, 92).”

    From Examining the role of AI technology in online mental healthcare: opportunities, challenges, and implications, a mixed-methods review (2024) · cites this paper as [79]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In terms of allegiance bias, most included articles developed and studied their own AI tools instead of AI tools developed by other researchers.

    “In terms of allegiance bias, because of the scarcity and novelty of AI-augmented interventions and other AI algorithms, most of the included articles developed and studied their own AI tools, instead of AI tools developed by other researchers (29, 33, 73, 74, 76, 79, 80, 82–87, 90).”

    From Examining the role of AI technology in online mental healthcare: opportunities, challenges, and implications, a mixed-methods review (2024) · cites this paper as [79]

    The Method (Design and Intervention; page unavailable) describes a trial of Healthy Mind’s intelligent notification algorithm and says the app was created using Life Guide Toolbox software. It does not establish that this study’s authors developed the AI algorithm themselves; the Design section says its sensing and model-generation functions used independent open-source libraries. This paper also cannot establish the claim that most of the citing review’s included articles studied their own tools. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Morrison et al. (2017) found that compared to occasional notifications, intelligent notifications and daily notifications encouraged a higher exposure to therapeutic content while maintaining engagement levels; however, timing of notification did not seem to support treatment engagement when comparing intelligent notifications against daily notifications.

    “They found that compared to occasional notifications, intelligent notifications and daily notifications encouraged a higher exposure to the therapeutic content while maintaining engagement levels. However, they noted that the timing of the notification did not seem to support treatment engagement, when comparing intelligent notifications against daily notifications (79).”
  • The included studies (n=4) reported on implementation of intelligent notifications, momentary sensing, monitoring of treatment outcomes, and triage decision support.

    “In terms of improvement to the delivery of online therapy, the included studies [n=4 (30, 75, 79, 80)] have reported on the implementation of intelligent notifications, momentary sensing, monitoring of treatment outcomes, and triage decision support.”
  • Morrison et al. (2017) found that there was no significant improvement comparing daily to intelligent notifications.

    “Though, in the case of Morrison et al. (2017) they found that there was no significant improvement comparing daily to intelligent notifications (79, 80).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [24]Pejovic V, Musolesi, M. InterruptMe. In: Brush AJ, Friday A, Kientz J, Scott J, Song J, editors. Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing; 2014 Sep 13–17; Seattle, WA, USA. New York, NY: ACM; 2014. p. 897–908.
  2. [32]Hargood C, Michaelides D, Weal M, Pejovic V, Musolesi M, Morrison L, et al. The UBhave framework: Developing dynamic mobile applications for digital behavioural interventions. Poster presented at: 11th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Computing, Networking and Services; 2014 Dec 02–05; London, UK.
  3. [38]Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1969.
  4. [42]Mehrotra A, Musolesi M, Hendley R, Pejovic V. Designing content-driven intelligent notication mechamisms for mobile applications. In: Mase K, Lanheinrich M, Gatica-Perez D, Gellersen H, Choudhury T, Yatani K, editors. Proceedings of the 2015 ACM InternationalJoint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing; 2015 Sep 07–11; Osaka, Japan. New York, NY: ACM; 2015. p. 813–824.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morrison, L. G., Hargood, C., Pejovic, V., Geraghty, A. W. A., Lloyd, S., Goodman, N., Michaelides, D. T., Weston, A., Musolesi, M., Weal, M. J., & Yardley, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • Bournemouth University (GB)
  • Durham University (GB)
  • Gateshead Council (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Morrison, Leanne G.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2017-01-03
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
e0169162
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1771486365
Cited by
162
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
14.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Teesside University Research Portal (Teesside University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bournemouth University Research Online (Bournemouth University) (acceptedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • TeesRep (Teesside University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/I032673/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Keywords
push notifications, notification timing, smartphone-based intervention, stress management, healthy mind, user engagement, context-aware notifications, mobile health
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Machine Learning, Adolescent, Adult, Algorithms, Automation, Female, United Kingdom, Health Promotion, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Public Health, Quality of Life, Stress, Psychological, Health Behavior, Telemedicine, Geographic Information Systems, Young Adult, Text Messaging, Accelerometry

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