↓ Skip to main content

Choosing between responsive-design websites versus mobile apps for your mobile behavioral intervention: presenting four case studies

Overview of attention for article published in Translational Behavioral Medicine, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
21 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
357 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Choosing between responsive-design websites versus mobile apps for your mobile behavioral intervention: presenting four case studies
Published in
Translational Behavioral Medicine, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13142-016-0448-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabrielle M. Turner-McGrievy, Sarah B. Hales, Danielle E. Schoffman, Homay Valafar, Keith Brazendale, R. Glenn Weaver, Michael W. Beets, Michael D. Wirth, Nitin Shivappa, Trisha Mandes, James R. Hébert, Sara Wilcox, Andrew Hester, Matthew J. McGrievy

Abstract

Both mobile apps and responsive-design websites (web apps) can be used to deliver mobile health (mHealth) interventions, but it can be difficult to discern which to use in research. The goal of this paper is to present four case studies from behavioral interventions that developed either a mobile app or a web app for research and present an information table to help researchers determine which mobile option would work best for them. Four behavioral intervention case studies (two developed a mobile app, and two developed a web app) presented include time, cost, and expertise. Considerations for adopting a mobile app or a web app-such as time, cost, access to programmers, data collection, security needs, and intervention components- are presented. Future studies will likely integrate both mobile app and web app modalities. The considerations presented here can help guide researchers on which platforms to choose prior to starting an mHealth intervention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 357 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 357 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 52 15%
Student > Master 41 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 10%
Researcher 26 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 5%
Other 58 16%
Unknown 128 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 51 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 39 11%
Psychology 29 8%
Computer Science 28 8%
Social Sciences 15 4%
Other 56 16%
Unknown 139 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,826,619
of 25,378,799 outputs
Outputs from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#97
of 1,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,542
of 319,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#3
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,378,799 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,084 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,205 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.