↓ Skip to main content

Sleep apps and behavioral constructs: A content analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Preventive Medicine Reports, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
123 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.
Article details
Title
Sleep apps and behavioral constructs: A content analysis
Published in
Preventive Medicine Reports, February 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.02.018
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Although sleep apps are among the most popular commercially available health apps, little is known about how well these apps are grounded in behavioral theory. Three-hundred and sixty-nine apps were initially identified using the term "sleep" from the Google play store and Apple iTunes in September 2015. The final sample consisted of 35 apps that met the following inclusion criteria: 1) Stand-alone functionality; 2) Sleep tracker or monitor apps ranked by 100 + users; 3) Sleep Alarm apps ranked by 1000 + users; and 4) English language. A coding instrument was developed to assess the presence of 19 theoretical constructs. All 35 apps were downloaded and coded. The inter-rater reliability between coders was 0.996. A "1" was assigned if a construct was present in the app and "0" if it was not. Mean scores were calculated across all apps, and comparisons were made between total scores and app ratings using R. The mean behavior construct scores (BCS) across all apps was 34% (5% - 84%). Behavioral constructs for realistic goal setting (86%), time management (77%), and self-monitoring (66%) were most common. Although a positive association was observed between BCS and user ratings, this was not found to be statistically significant (p > 0.05). The mean persuasive technology score was 42% (20% to 80%), with higher scores for paid compared to free apps (p < 0.05). While the overall behavior construct scores were low, an opportunity exists to develop or modify existing apps to support sustainable sleep hygiene practices.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 123 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 21%
Student > Bachelor 20 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Researcher 13 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 5%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 34 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Psychology 12 10%
Computer Science 7 6%
Engineering 7 6%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 40 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 77. 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 16 March 2020.
All research outputs
#699,249
of 34,302,672 outputs
Outputs from Preventive Medicine Reports
#106
of 2,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,028
of 352,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Preventive Medicine Reports
#5
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,302,672 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,041 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 352,421 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 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 90% of its contemporaries.