Cited by 114Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Assessing User Engagement of an mHealth Intervention: Development and Implementation of the Growing Healthy App Engagement Index

Open access
Taki, Sarah, Lymer, Sharyn, Russell, Catherine Georgina, Campbell, Karen, Laws, Rachel, Ong, Kok-Leong, Elliott, Rosalind, Denney-Wilson, Elizabeth·2017·JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Childhood obesity is an ongoing problem in developed countries that needs targeted prevention in the youngest age groups. Children in socioeconomically disadvantaged families are most at risk. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions offer a potential route to target these families because of its relatively low cost and high reach. The Growing healthy program was developed to provide evidence-based information on infant feeding from birth to 9 months via app or website. Understanding user engagement with these media is vital to developing successful interventions. Engagement is a complex, multifactorial concept that needs to move beyond simple metrics. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to describe the development of an engagement index (EI) to monitor participant interaction with the Growing healthy app. The index included a number of subindices and cut-points to categorize engagement. METHODS: The Growing program was a feasibility study in which 300 mother-infant dyads were provided with an app which included 3 push notifications that was sent each week. Growing healthy participants completed surveys at 3 time points: baseline (T1) (infant age ≤3 months), infant aged 6 months (T2), and infant aged 9 months (T3). In addition, app usage data were captured from the app. The EI was adapted from the Web Analytics Demystified visitor EI. Our EI included 5 subindices: (1) click depth, (2) loyalty, (3) interaction, (4) recency, and (5) feedback. The overall EI summarized the subindices from date of registration through to 39 weeks (9 months) from the infant's date of birth. Basic descriptive data analysis was performed on the metrics and components of the EI as well as the final EI score. Group comparisons used t tests, analysis of variance (ANOVA), Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and Spearman correlation tests as appropriate. Consideration of independent variables associated with the EI score were modeled using linear regression models. RESULTS: The overall EI mean score was 30.0% (SD 11.5%) with a range of 1.8% - 57.6%. The cut-points used for high engagement were scores greater than 37.1% and for poor engagement were scores less than 21.1%. Significant explanatory variables of the EI score included: parity (P=.005), system type including "app only" users or "both" app and email users (P<.001), recruitment method (P=.02), and baby age at recruitment (P=.005). CONCLUSIONS: The EI provided a comprehensive understanding of participant behavior with the app over the 9-month period of the Growing healthy program. The use of the EI in this study demonstrates that rich and useful data can be collected and used to inform assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of the app and in turn inform future interventions.

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 · 10.2196/mhealth.7236

Cites

42 of 42 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Taki, S., Lymer, S., Russell, C. G., Campbell, K., Laws, R., Ong, K.-L., Elliott, R., & Denney-Wilson, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Technology Sydney (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Deakin University (AU)
  • La Trobe University (AU)
Corresponding author
Taki, Sarah
Venue
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Published
2017-06-29
Volume
5
Issue
6
Pages
e89
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2730024606
Cited by
114
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 4
FWCI
21.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Australian Government
  • Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute, Australian National University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
user engagement, mobile health apps, engagement index, infant feeding, childhood obesity prevention, socioeconomic deprivation, mother-infant dyads, push notifications, parity, app retention, app abandonment

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