Cited by 44Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsMental Health Research Topics

Characterizing Smartphone Engagement for Schizophrenia: Results of a Naturalist Mobile Health Study

Torous, John, Staples, Patrick, Slaters, Linda, Adams, Jared, Sandoval, Luis, Onnela, JP, Keshavan, Matcheri·2017·Clinical Schizophrenia & Related Psychoses

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Despite growing interest in smartphone apps for schizophrenia, little is known about how these apps are utilized in the real world. Understanding how app users are engaging with these tools outside of the confines of traditional clinical studies offers an important information on who is most likely to use apps and what type of data they are willing to share. METHODS: 2017 using the R programming language. We included all registered app users in our analysis with reported ages less than 100. RESULTS: We analyzed a total of 43,451 mood, medication and symptom entries from 622 registered users, and excluded a single patient with a reported age of 114. Seventy one percent of the 622 users tried the mood-tracking feature at least once, 49% the symptom tracking feature, and 36% the medication-tracking feature. The mean number of uses of the mood feature was two, the symptom feature 10, and the medication feature 14. However, a small subset of users were very engaged with the app and the top 10 users for each feature accounted for 35% or greater of all entries for that feature. We find that user engagement follows a power law distribution for each feature, and this fit was largely invariant when stratifying for age or gender. DISCUSSION: Engagement with this app for schizophrenia was overall low, but similar to prior naturalistic studies for mental health app use in other diseases. The low rate of engagement in naturalistic settings, compared to higher rates of use in clinical studies, suggests the importance of clinical involvement as one factor in driving engagement for mental health apps. Power law relationships suggest strongly skewed user engagement, with a small subset of users accounting for the majority of substantial engagements. There is a need for further research on app engagement in schizophrenia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3371/csrp.jtps.071317

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Torous, J., Staples, P., Slaters, L., Adams, J., Sandoval, L., Onnela, J., & Keshavan, M.
Affiliations
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Schizophrenia and Related Disorders Alliance of America, Houston, TX
  • Self Care Catalyst, San Francisco, CA
Venue
Clinical Schizophrenia & Related Psychoses
Publisher
Longdom Group
Published
2017-08-04
Issue
aop
ISSN
1935-1232 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2743267105
Cited by
44
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8
FWCI
7.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Schizophrenia & Related Psychoses (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
schizophrenia, mobile application, mobile health, user engagement, mood tracking, symptom monitoring, medication tracking, power-law distribution, mental health apps

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