| Title |
Strategies for mHealth Research: Lessons from 3 Mobile Intervention Studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10488-014-0556-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dror Ben-Zeev, Stephen M. Schueller, Mark Begale, Jennifer Duffecy, John M. Kane, David C. Mohr |
| Abstract |
The capacity of Mobile Health (mHealth) technologies to propel healthcare forward is directly linked to the quality of mobile interventions developed through careful mHealth research. mHealth research entails several unique characteristics, including collaboration with technologists at all phases of a project, reliance on regional telecommunication infrastructure and commercial mobile service providers, and deployment and evaluation of interventions "in the wild", with participants using mobile tools in uncontrolled environments. In the current paper, we summarize the lessons our multi-institutional/multi-disciplinary team has learned conducting a range of mHealth projects using mobile phones with diverse clinical populations. First, we describe three ongoing projects that we draw from to illustrate throughout the paper. We then provide an example for multidisciplinary teamwork and conceptual mHealth intervention development that we found to be particularly useful. Finally, we discuss mHealth research challenges (i.e. evolving technology, mobile phone selection, user characteristics, the deployment environment, and mHealth system "bugs and glitches"), and provide recommendations for identifying and resolving barriers, or preventing their occurrence altogether. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 31% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 25% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 6% |
| Sweden | 1 | 6% |
| Finland | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 63% |
| Scientists | 4 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 478 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| United States | 3 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 464 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 85 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 79 | 17% |
| Researcher | 73 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 41 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 36 | 8% |
| Other | 103 | 22% |
| Unknown | 61 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 104 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 86 | 18% |
| Computer Science | 62 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 33 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 6% |
| Other | 73 | 15% |
| Unknown | 92 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 13 October 2021.
All research outputs
#1,455,490
of 24,052,577 outputs
Outputs from Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
#52
of 679 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,725
of 231,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,052,577 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 679 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 231,255 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.