2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.entcom.2015.07.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Apps for life change: Critical review and solution directions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

4
28
0
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
4
28
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…This finding is consistent with findings from others (3,9,100). In their review, Hermawati and Lawson (9) suggest that when applications do not target a very specific user group this may result in a mismatch of potential user needs and application characteristics and therefore poor application engagement.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…This finding is consistent with findings from others (3,9,100). In their review, Hermawati and Lawson (9) suggest that when applications do not target a very specific user group this may result in a mismatch of potential user needs and application characteristics and therefore poor application engagement.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…Collaboration between academics and application developers promotes an appropriate balance of evidence-based content and functionality (3)(4)(5). This review can be used as a starting point and foundation for these collaborations in designing applications for nutrition-improvement projects.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…It offers access to home environment data in order to have a better understanding of the user context, i.e environmental factors such as thermal comfort, noise and luminosity levels. But, it also gives capabilities to developer of health applications to integrate feedbacks in order to engage users and help them to change their behaviour [18]. Finally, the infrastructure allows to build persuasive technology.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%