BACKGROUND Nearly one third of adults in the United States will meet criteria for alcohol use disorder (AUD) in their lifetime, yet fewer than ten percent of individuals who meet for AUD criteria will receive treatment for it. Mobile Health (mHealth) applications have been suggested as a potential mechanism for closing this treatment gap, yet there is a wide variety of quality and integrity within these apps, leading to potential harms to users. OBJECTIVE The aim of this paper is to systematically record and qualitatively examine user reviews or mHealth applications to identify features in the existing apps that may impact usefulness and adoption of them. METHODS The researchers used Apple App and Google Play stores to identify mHealth applications that were focused on modifying alcohol use and treating common comorbidities. Apps that were free without in-app purchases and provided multiple features for users were included. User reviews from the apps were downloaded and coded using content analysis. RESULTS Eight apps were identified and had user reviews downloaded. A total of 370 reviews were downloaded and 1353 phrases were coded from those reviews into a total of 11 codes. The five most common themes identified were praise, tools, suggestions for improvement, criticism, and tracking. CONCLUSIONS The current findings suggest that alcohol mobile app users broadly found the apps helpful in reducing their drinking or meeting their drinking goals. Users were able to identify features that they liked or found helpful in the apps, as well as provide concrete feedback about features that they would like included or improved. Specifically, flexible and expansive tracking features and comprehensive whole health tools were cited as valuable and desired. App developers and those looking to expand access to and uptake of alcohol reduction apps may find these user reviews helpful in guiding their app development. CLINICALTRIAL N/A
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kirouac et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: