Background Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading global health problem in this century and are the principal causes of death and health care spending worldwide. Mobile health (mHealth) apps can help manage and prevent NCDs if people are willing to use them as supportive tools. Still, many people are reluctant to adopt these technologies. Implementing new apps could result in earlier intervention for many health conditions, preventing more serious complications. Objective This research project aimed to test the factors that facilitate the adoption of mHealth apps by users with NCDs. We focused on determining, first, what user interface (UI) qualities and complexity levels appeal to users in evaluating mHealth apps. We also wanted to determine whether people prefer that the data collected by an mHealth app be analyzed using a physician or an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm. The contribution of this work is both theoretical and practical. We examined users’ considerations when adopting mHealth apps that promote healthy lifestyles and helped them manage their NCDs. Our results can also help direct mHealth app UI designers to focus on the most appealing aspects of our findings. Methods A total of 347 respondents volunteered to rate 3 models of mHealth apps based on 16 items that measured instrumentality, aesthetics, and symbolism. Respondents rated each model after reading 1 of 2 different scenarios. In one scenario, a physician analyzed the data, whereas, in the other, the data were analyzed by an AI algorithm. These scenarios tested the degree of trust people placed in AI algorithms versus the “human touch” of a human physician regarding analyzing data collected by an mHealth app. Results As shown by the responses, the involvement of a human physician in the application had a significant effect (P<.001) on the perceived instrumentality of the simple model. The complex model with more controls was rated significantly more aesthetic when associated with a physician performing data analysis rather than an AI algorithm (P=.03). Conclusions Generally, when participants found a human touch in the mHealth app (connection to a human physician who they assumed would analyze their data), they judged the app more favorably. Simple models were evaluated more positively than complex ones, and aesthetics and symbolism were salient predictors of preference. These trends suggest that designers and developers of mHealth apps should keep the designs simple and pay special attention to aesthetics and symbolic value.

No abstract

UNSTRUCTURED The desire for healthcare organizations to reduce the cost of chronic care and to prevent disease from occurring to begin with, has coincided with the development of new technology that is revolutionizing digital health. Numerous health-oriented mobile phone applications (referred to as mHealth apps) have been developed and are available for download into smartphones. These mHealth apps serve a wide range of functions. There are apps that monitor data to treat or avoid chronic illness; apps for managing daily activities and diet; apps promoting healthy choices for people who want to maintain and improve their overall health, and many others. While it is generally recognized that mHealth apps have a significant potential for promoting public health, little research has been done to determine user preferences for such apps. Understanding what users want in their mHealth apps can help increase their acceptability and encourage healthy lifestyles. The research in this article tests the major product qualities of such apps, asking two key questions: Do users seek interaction with a live physician, or are they willing to rely on artificial intelligence to analyze data from their app? Which aspects of their app do they consider as having a positive instrumental, aesthetic, or symbolic value? Next, the research presented here tests how these judgments influence product preference. The contribution of this paper is its focus on user preferences which may help in the design of mHealth apps to better address peoples’ needs—thus encouraging a wide, frequent, and effective use of such tools which promote public health.