Please  critique the research article (that is included here, pdf included  here) from the following angles: a) Data collection b) Data analysis c)  Results, findings and conclusion.

1. A minimum of 500 words is required.

2.  APA format needs to be followed (100%). As per University mandate, not  following APA formatting can impact your grades negatively.

3. Do your best to refer research articles from peer reviewed journals like IEEE, ACM. A minimum of 3 references are required.

Original Paper

Who Uses Mobile Phone Health Apps and Does Use Matter? A
Secondary Data Analytics Approach

Jennifer K Carroll1, MPH, MD; Anne Moorhead2, MSc, MA, MICR, CSci, FNutr (Public Health), PhD; Raymond

Bond3, PhD; William G LeBlanc1, PhD; Robert J Petrella4, MD, PhD, FCFP, FACSM; Kevin Fiscella5, MPH, MD
1Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, United States
2School of Communication, Ulster University, Newtownabbey, United Kingdom
3School of Computing & Maths, University of Ulster, Newtownabbey, United Kingdom
4Lawson Health Research Institute, Family Medicine, Kinesiology and Cardiology, Western University, London, ON, Canada
5Family Medicine, Public Health Sciences and Community Health, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States

Corresponding Author:
Jennifer K Carroll, MPH, MD
Department of Family Medicine
University of Colorado
Mail Stop F496
12631 E. 17th Ave
Aurora, CO, 80045
United States
Phone: 1 303 724 9232
Fax: 1 303 724 9747
Email: jennifer.2.carroll@ucdenver.edu

Abstract

Background: Mobile phone use and the adoption of healthy lifestyle software apps (“health apps”) are rapidly proliferating.
There is limited information on the users of health apps in terms of their social demographic and health characteristics, intentions
to change, and actual health behaviors.

Objective: The objectives of our study were to (1) to describe the sociodemographic characteristics associated with health app
use in a recent US nationally representative sample; (2) to assess the attitudinal and behavioral predictors of the use of health
apps for health promotion; and (3) to examine the association between the use of health-related apps and meeting the recommended
guidelines for fruit and vegetable intake and physical activity.

Methods: Data on users of mobile devices and health apps were analyzed from the National Cancer Institute’s 2015 Health
Information National Trends Survey (HINTS), which was designed to provide nationally representative estimates for health
information in the United States and is publicly available on the Internet. We used multivariable logistic regression models to
assess sociodemographic predictors of mobile device and health app use and examine the associations between app use, intentions
to change behavior, and actual behavioral change for fruit and vegetable consumption, physical activity, and weight loss.

Results: From the 3677 total HINTS respondents, older individuals (45-64 years, odds ratio, OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.47-68; 65+
years, OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.14-0.24), males (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66-0.94), and having degree (OR 2.83, 95% CI 2.18-3.70) or less
than high school education (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24-0.72) were all significantly associated with a reduced likelihood of having
adopted health apps. Similarly, both age and education were significant variables for predicting whether a person had adopted a
mobile device, especially if that person was a college graduate (OR 3.30). Individuals with apps were significantly more likely
to report intentions to improve fruit (63.8% with apps vs 58.5% without apps, P=.01) and vegetable (74.9% vs 64.3%, P<.01) consumption, physical activity (83.0% vs 65.4%, P<.01), and weight loss (83.4% vs 71.8%, P<.01). Individuals with apps were also more likely to meet recommendations for physical activity compared with those without a device or health apps (56.2% with apps vs 47.8% without apps, P<.01).

Conclusions: The main users of health apps were individuals who were younger, had more education, reported excellent health,
and had a higher income. Although differences persist for gender, age, and educational attainment, many individual
sociodemographic factors are becoming less potent in influencing engagement with mobile devices and health app use. App use
was associated with intentions to change diet and physical activity and meeting physical activity recommendations.

J Med Internet Res 2017 | vol. 19 | iss. 4 | e125 | p. 1http://www.jmir.org/2017/4/e125/
(page number not for citation purposes)

Carroll et alJOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH

XSL•FO
RenderX

mailto:jennifer.2.carroll@ucdenver.edu

http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL

http://www.renderx.com/

(J Med Internet Res 2017;19(4):e125) doi: 10.2196/jmir.5604

KEYWORDS

smartphone; cell phone; Internet; mobile applications; health promotion; health behavior

Introduction

As of 2015, nearly two-thirds (64%) of the American public
owned a mobile phone, which is an increase from 35% in 2011
[1]. It is estimated that 90% of the worldwide population will
own a mobile phone by 2020 [1]. Current UK data reveals that
mobile phone usage is increasing as 66% adults aged more than
18 years owned a mobile phone in 2015, up from 61% in 2014
[2]. Mobile phone ownership is higher among younger people,
with 77% ownership for those aged 16-24 years [3]. Although
mobile phone ownership is especially high among younger
persons and those with higher educational attainment and
income [4], those with lower income and educational attainment
are now likely to be “mobile phone dependent,” meaning that
they do not have broadband access at home and have few other
options for Web-based access other than via mobile phone.

As mobile phone ownership rapidly proliferates, so does the
number of mobile phone software apps grown in the marketplace
[5]. Apps focused on health promotion are quite common: more
than 100,000 health apps are available in the iTunes and Google
Play stores [6]. This staggering number speaks to both the huge
market and ongoing demand for new tools to help the public
manage their diet, fitness, and weight-related goals, and the
limitations of the current health care system to provide such
resources. A recent study found that 53% of cell phone users
owned a smartphone—this translates to 45% of all American
adults—and that half of those (or about 1 in 4 Americans) have
used their phone to look up health information [7]. There is
increasing usage of health apps among health care professionals,
patients and general public [8], and apps can play a role in
patient education, disease self-management, remote monitoring
of patients, and collection of dietary data [9-12]. Using mobile
phones and apps, social media also can be easily accessed, and
increasing numbers of individuals are using social media for
health information with reported benefits and limitations [8].

Despite the massive uptake in mobile phone ownership and
health app usage and their potential for improving health,
important limitations of health apps are the lack of evidence of
clinical effectiveness, lack of integration with the health care
delivery system, the need for formal evaluation and review, and
potential threats to safety and privacy [6,13-17]. Although
previous studies have described the sociodemographic factors
associated with mobile health and app use [7,18,19], it is a
rapidly changing field with the most recent published reports
reflecting data at least four to five years old. Additionally, there
is a lack of information on the users of health apps in terms of
their sociodemographic and health characteristics and health
behaviors. Furthermore, to our knowledge, there have been no
previous publications reporting on the association between the
use of health apps, behavioral or attitudinal factors (ie, readiness
or intentions to change), and health outcomes. This information
is important for future health-improving initiatives and for

identifying appropriate use of health apps among population
groups.

Therefore, the aim for our study was 3-fold: (1) to describe the
sociodemographic characteristics associated with health app
use in a recent US nationally representative sample; (2) to assess
the attitudinal and behavioral predictors of the use of health
apps for health promotion; and (3) to examine the association
between the use of health-related apps and meeting the
recommended guidelines for fruit and vegetable intake and
physical activity. Given the increasing focus on new models
for integrating technology into health care and the need to
expand the evidence base on the role of health apps for health
and wellness promotion, these research questions are timely
and relevant to inform the development of health app
interventions.

Methods

Data Source
The National Cancer Institute’s Health Information National
Trends Survey (HINTS) is a national probability sample of US
adults that assesses usage and trends in health information access
and understanding. HINTS was first administered in 2002-2003
as a cross-sectional survey of US civilians and
noninstitutionalized adults. It has since been iteratively
administered in 2003, 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.
We used data from HINTS 4 Cycle 4 data released in June 2015,
which corresponded to surveys administered in
August-November, 2014. Publicly available datasets and
information about methodology are available at the HINTS
website [20]. The 2014 iteration reported herein contained
questions about whether participants used mobile phone or tablet
technology and software apps for health-related reasons. The
overall response rate was 34.44%. This study was reviewed and
qualified for an Exemption by the American Academy of Family
Physicians Institutional Review Board.

Participants
A total of 3677 individuals completed the 2014 HINTS survey.
From this sample, 148 respondents were considered partial
completers, in that they completed 50%-79% of the questions
in Sections A and B. We included all 3677 respondents in our
analysis. We used sampling weights from the HINTS dataset
that were incorporated into the regression analyses.

Measures

Demographics
We used participants’ self-report of their age, sex, race,
ethnicity, income, level of education, English proficiency,
height, and weight. We converted height and weight into body

mass index (BMI), using weight (kg)/height (m2)×10,000, and
classified participants as obese (≥30), overweight (29.9-26), or
normal weight or underweight (<26).

J Med Internet Res 2017 | vol. 19 | iss. 4 | e125 | p. 2http://www.jmir.org/2017/4/e125/
(page number not for citation purposes)

Carroll et alJOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH
XSL•FO
RenderX

http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5604

http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL

http://www.renderx.com/

Usage of Mobile Devices and Health Apps
We used participants’ responses to the 3 questions to
characterize the distribution of subjects who used health-related
software apps on their mobile devices. The participants were
asked whether they had a tablet computer, smartphone, basic
cell phone only, or none of the above. We examined factors for
those with and without mobile devices, since previous studies
have shown differences in seeking health information on the
Internet related to access (eg, availability of a computer) [21,22],
HINTS dataset is a nationally representative sample, and we
wished to put our findings on app use in the larger population
context. We categorized participants who had a mobile phone
or a tablet device under the label “Device+.” Similarly,
participants who did not report having a mobile phone or a tablet
device were labeled “Device-.” Of the Device+ group, we also
categorized them according to whether they had health apps on
their device (Device+/App+) or did not have health apps on
their device (Device+/App-).

Fruit and Vegetable Intake
We assessed fruit and vegetable intake using the 2 questions:
amount of fruit consumed per day and amount of vegetables
consumed per day (7 response options for each ranging from
none to >4 cups per day). We reclassified the response options
for both questions into a single dichotomous outcome variable,
that is, the subject either (1) meets recommendations for fruit
or vegetables (4 or more cups for each) or (2) does not meet
recommendations for fruit or vegetables (all other response
options). Fruit and vegetable scores were analyzed separately.

Physical Activity
We assessed physical activity using the 2 questions: (1) in a
typical week how many days do you do any physical activity
or exercise of at least moderate intensity, such as brisk walking,
bicycling at a regular pace, and swimming at a regular pace? (8
response options ranging from none to 7 days per week) and
(2) on the days that you do any physical activity or exercise of
at least moderate intensity how long do you do these activities?
(2 response options for minutes and hours). We reclassified the
response options into a single dichotomous outcome variable
for physical activity, that is, whether the subject (1) met physical
activity recommendations (≥150 minutes per week) or did not
meet the physical activity recommendations (<150 minutes per week).

Intentions to Change Behavior
We examined participants’ intentions to change behavior based
on the 5 questions (all with yes or no responses): At any time

in the last year, have you intentionally tried to (1) increase the
amount of fruit or 100% fruit juice you eat or drink, (2) increase
the amount of vegetables or 100% vegetable juice you eat or
drink, (3) decrease the amount of regular soda or pop you
usually drink in a week, (4) lose weight, and (5) increase the
amount of exercise you get in a typical week?

Statistical Analysis
The outcome variable (OUTCOME) was a composite derived
from 3 survey variables: (1) own a smartphone (an
Internet-enabled mobile phone “such as iPhone android
BlackBerry or Windows phone” differentiated from a “basic
cell phone,” hereafter referred to as “mobile phone”) or device,
(2) have health apps on mobile phone or device, and (3) use of
health apps. Own a mobile phone or device was a
system-supplied derived variable to categorize responses given
to question B4 (possession of a mobile phone or tablet device).
Have health apps on mobile phone or device (question B5)
asked about health apps on a tablet or mobile phone. Use of
health apps (question B6a) asked whether the apps on a mobile
phone or tablet helped in achieving a health-related goal.
OUTCOME consisted of 3 levels: Device-/App- (33.2% of
respondents), Device+/App- (44% of respondents), and
Device+/App+ (22.77% of respondents). Device referred to
having a tablet or mobile phone, and App referred to having a
health-related app that ran on a tablet or mobile phone. A total
of 93 of 3677 respondents were unable to be classified due to
missing data. These people were not used in the analyses. To
assess the relationship between OUTCOME and the
demographic or health behavior variables, simple unweighted
2-way crosstab tables were generated and tested with a
chi-square test of association. We used a cutoff of P<.05 to determine statistical significance for all analyses.

We used the R programming language (R-Studio) and SPSS
(SPSS Inc) for all data modeling and analysis carried out in this
study.

Results

Principal Findings
From the 3677 total HINTS respondents, 3584 answered
questions about whether or not they had a tablet computer or
mobile phone, or used apps. Figure 1 shows the participants in
this study.

J Med Internet Res 2017 | vol. 19 | iss. 4 | e125 | p. 3http://www.jmir.org/2017/4/e125/
(page number not for citation purposes)

Carroll et alJOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH
XSL•FO
RenderX

http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL

http://www.renderx.com/

Figure 1. Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) respondents’ use of mobile phones, tablets, and apps.

Demographic Variables Associated With App Use
Table 1 compares respondents grouped into Device+/App+,
Device+/App-, and Device-, according to sociodemographic
characteristics. As shown in Table 1, those who used health
apps (compared with those who either did not have apps or did

not have the necessary equipment) were more likely to be
younger, live in metropolitan areas, have more education, have
higher income, speak English well, be Asian, and report
excellent health. There was no significant association between
both BMI and smoking status and app use.

J Med Internet Res 2017 | vol. 19 | iss. 4 | e125 | p. 4http://www.jmir.org/2017/4/e125/
(page number not for citation purposes)

Carroll et alJOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH
XSL•FO
RenderX

http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL

http://www.renderx.com/

Table 1. Demographic variables associated with app usage.

P valueDevice-

n (%)

Device+/App-

n (%)

Device+/App+

nb,c (%)d

Demographic variables

.391156 (55.29)1555 (50.23)808 (51.62)Sex (female vs male; na,c=3519)

<.0011111 (21.92)1552 (52.25)782 (65.62)Age (18-44 years vs 45+ years; n=3415)

<.011121 (51.82)1535 (27.95)788 (12.72)Education (high school or less vs some college or college graduate, n=3444)

<.0011162 (75.12)1560 (42.20)808 (31.72)Income (US $0-49,999 vs 50,000 or greater; n=3530)

<.011057 (83.68)1453 (78.52)763 (71.85)Race or ethnicity (white vs other; n=3273)

.491114 (33.82)1524 (36.98)782 (33.71)BMI (normal vs overweight, obese; n=3420)

<.0011191 (78.93)1577 (85.67)816 (92.10)Metro vs nonmetro (n=3584)

<.0011089 (90.37)1497 (97.13)759 (99.37)Speak English (very well or well vs not well or not at all; n=3584)

<.0011138 (74.99)1544 (89.74)795 (92.85)Self-rated health (excellent, very good, good vs fair or poor; n=3477)

aThe sample sizes (n’s) listed for each variable in the far left column represent the total number of respondents across all app-usage categories
(Device+/App+, Device +/App-, Device-) who answered that question.
bThe sample sizes (n’s) listed for each variable within each cell represent the total number of respondents within a given app-usage category (either
Device+/App+, Device +/App-, or Device-) who answered that question.
cSample sizes vary for each variable due to missing values.
dPopulation estimates were used for the numerators and denominators in the calculation of percentages. Row percentages do not add to 100%, as the
table shows percentages within a given app-usage category (Device+/App+, Device +/App-, or Device-).

Association Between the Use of Apps and Intentions
to Change Diet, Perform Physical Activity, and Lose
Weight
Table 2 shows the association between the use of apps (versus
Device+/App- or Device-) with intentions to change diet,

perform physical activity, or lose weight. As Table 2 shows,
participants with apps were significantly more likely to report
intentions to improve fruit (P=.01) and vegetable consumption
(P<.01), physical activity (P<.01), and weight loss (P<.01) compared with those in the Device+/App- or Device- groups.

Table 2. Association between the usage of apps for health-related goal and intentions to change diet, physical activity, or lose weight.

P valueaDevice-

n (%)
Device+/App-
n (%)
Device+/App+
n (%)

Health-related intention

.01654 (48.94)885 (58.50)545 (63.76)Increase fruit

<.01717 (50.02)1023 (64.26)621 (74.92)Increase vegetables

.06754 (77.36)1135 (82.76)630 (84.96)Decrease soda

<.01769 (49.94)1237 (65.42)707 (82.99)Increase physical activity

<.01881 (60.02)1259 (71.75)692 (83.36)Lose weight

aSignificance between participants with apps (Device+/App+) compared with those not using apps or devices (Device+/App- or Device- groups).

Association Between the Use of Apps and Meeting
Recommendations for Fruit and Vegetable Intake and
Physical Activity
Table 3 shows the association between the use of apps (versus
Device+/App- or Device-) and meeting the recommendations

for fruit and vegetable intake and physical activity. Participants
in the Device+/App+ group were not significantly more likely
to meet recommendations for fruit and vegetables compared
with those in the Device+/App- or Device- groups; however,
they were significantly more likely to exercise more than 2
hours per week.

J Med Internet Res 2017 | vol. 19 | iss. 4 | e125 | p. 5http://www.jmir.org/2017/4/e125/
(page number not for citation purposes)

Carroll et alJOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH
XSL•FO
RenderX

http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL

http://www.renderx.com/

Table 3. Association between the use of apps for health-related goal and meeting recommendations for fruit and vegetables and physical activity.

P valueaDevice-
n (%)
Device+/App-
n (%)
Device+/App+
n (%)

Percent respondents meeting recommendations

.251161 (5.43)1560 (7.96)804 (8.87)Fruit

.271155 (3.48)1557 (3.01)809 (4.81)Vegetables

<.011144 (37.69)1552 (47.79)801 (56.23)Physical activity

aSignificance between participants with apps (Device+/App+) compared with those not using apps or devices (Device+/App- or Device- groups).

Predicting Health App Adoption Only (Binary
Classification)
Table 4 presents the statistically significant odds ratios (ORs)
as derived using multivariate logistic regression when applied
to the entire dataset. As expected, those aged 45-64 years (OR
0.56) or 65+ years (OR 0.19) had a reduced likelihood of having
adopted health apps relative to younger persons. It also showed
that males were slightly less likely (OR 0.80) to have a health

app compared with females. The most significant finding was
the confirmation that graduates had significantly higher odds
(OR 2.83) of having a health app especially when compared
with those who had attained an education that was considered
“less than high school” (OR 0.43). The results also indicated
that the category “completed high school only” had no predictive
ability for estimating whether a person had adopted a health
app.

Table 4. Statistically significant odds ratios derived using multivariate logistic regression when applied to the entire dataset for predicting health app
adoption only.

P valueOdds ratio

(95% CI)

Variable

<.0010.56

(0.47-0.68)

Age (45-64 years)

<.0010.19

(0.14-0.24)

Age (65+ years)

<.010.80

(0.66-0.94)

Sex (male)

<.0012.83

(2.18-3.70)

Education (college graduate or higher)

<.010.43

(0.24-0.72)

Education (less than high school)

<.011.70

(1.30-2.26)

Education (some college)

.051.25

(0.99-1.55)

Race (black)

Predicting Mobile Technology Adoption Only (Binary
Classification)
Table 5 presents the statistically significant ORs that increased
or decreased the likelihood that a person had adopted mobile
technology (tablet or mobile phone). Interestingly, there were
no statistically significant ORs for gender or racial categories.

However, similar to predicting health app adoption, both age
and education were significant variables for predicting whether
a person had adopted a mobile device, especially if that person
was a college graduate (OR 3.30). In addition, the results
indicated that the category “completed high school only” had
no predictive ability for estimating whether a person had adopted
a mobile device.

J Med Internet Res 2017 | vol. 19 | iss. 4 | e125 | p. 6http://www.jmir.org/2017/4/e125/
(page number not for citation purposes)

Carroll et alJOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH
XSL•FO
RenderX

http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL

http://www.renderx.com/

Table 5. Statistically significant odds ratios derived using multivariate logistic regression when applied to the entire dataset for predicting mobile device
adoption only.

P valueOdds ratio (95% CI)Variable

<.0010.35 (0.28-0.45)Age (45-64 years)

<.0010.09 (0.07-0.12)Age (65+ years)

<.0013.30 (2.65-4.11)Education (college graduate or higher)

<.0010.51 (0.37-0.70)Education (less than high school)

<.0011.87 (1.50-2.32)Education (some college)

Discussion

Principal Findings
Our first objective was to describe the sociodemographic and
health behavior characteristics associated with health app use
in a recent US nationally representative sample. Consistent with
previous findings [7], we found that those who were younger,
had more education, reported excellent health, and had a higher
income were more likely to use health apps. Our predictive
modeling using multivariate logistic regression showed that
education, sex, gender, and race were only mildly to moderately
potent in predicting mobile technology adoption.

Our second objective was to assess the behavioral and attitudinal
predictors of the use of health apps for health promotion. We
found that participants with apps were also more likely to report
intentions to improve fruit and vegetable consumption, physical
activity, and weight loss. Finally, the third objective was to
examine the association between the use of health-related apps
and meeting the recommended guidelines for fruit and vegetable
intake and physical activity. We found that participants in the
health apps group were significantly more likely to meet
recommendations for physical activity compared with those
without a device or health apps.

Comparison With Prior Work
This study shares some similarities with previous HINTS
analyses. For example, McCully et al [19] reported that users
of the Internet for diet, weight, and physical activity tended to
be younger and more educated and that Internet use for these
purposes was more likely to be associated with higher fruit and
vegetable intake and moderate exercise. However in that study,
women were no more likely than men to use the Internet for
diet, weight, and physical activity, which was different from
our findings. In that study, minorities were more likely to use
the Internet; in our study, we found no such association.
Consistent with our findings, Kontos et al found that males,
those with lower education, and older US adults were less likely
to engage in a number of eHealth activities [18]. Similar to their
findings 3 years ago, our findings pointed to differences by
education for app use for health promotion.

The association between app use, intention to change lifestyle
behaviors, and actually meeting recommendations for healthy
lifestyle factors is interesting and could be due to several
reasons. First, it is possible that there are preexisting differences
in individuals who engage with health apps compared with those
who do not. Users of health apps may have greater motivation

and interest in changing their diet, weight, or physical activity.
A recent review found that very few available apps provided
evidence-based support to meet lifestyle recommendations [13].
It could also be that app users are engaging with health apps to
help them simply track or self-manage differently than their
counterparts; thus, there could be differences in preferences or
needs. Due to the correlational nature of the data, we cannot
draw conclusions about the relationships or causal pathways.
Similar observations have been reported in a study of users of
the Internet for diet, weight, and physical activity promotion
[19].

The prevalence of app usage in our study was 22% (816/3677).
This is a doubling from the Kontos study in which 11.7%
downloaded info onto a mobile device. Although the questions
in these 2 HINTS datasets were worded differently (eg,
“downloaded” is broader and not referring exclusively to
downloading an app), it suggests that demand for apps continues
to rise and offers potential for reaching a growing segment of
the US population.

Our findings provide evidence for educational, age, and gender
differences in the use of mobile devices and health apps.
Educational attainment, age, and gender have been previously
shown to be important predictors of adoption of mobile devices
and apps [18]. Educational attainment appears more important
than other variables commonly used as proxies for
socioeconomic position (eg, income, race or ethnicity). The
reasons for the educational differences are unclear, but may
reflect skills and confidence with the use of devices and possibly
social norms related to perceived value. Similarly, age likely
reflects both social norms and cohort effects, that is, exposure
during younger ages to these devices and apps. The reasons for
gender differences are less clear, but may reflect differences in
health-seeking behavior, and interest and participation in healthy
lifestyle interventions generally.

Limitations
This study had limitations that should be kept in mind when
interpreting results. First, HINTS is a cross-sectional survey;
although it is a nationally representative cohort of individuals,
we were not able to evaluate the trends in an individual’s health
app use over time. There is the possibility of unmeasured
confounding, that is, unidentified factors that might be
associated with app use and intentions or health behaviors,
which could influence the interpretation of results. Although
the results showed association, it did not indicate a causal
relationship. This study could not answer the question of
whether more motivated individuals sought out apps, or whether

J Med Internet Res 2017 | vol. 19 | iss. 4 | e125 | p. 7http://www.jmir.org/2017/4/e125/
(page number not for citation purposes)

Carroll et alJOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH
XSL•FO
RenderX

http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL

http://www.renderx.com/

app use improved motivation and health outcomes. Furthermore,
some of the cells for subgroups were small, thereby limiting
the generalizability of some of the subanalyses. As with all
cross-sectional surveys, this was a study of association, not
causation. Finally, we were limited by the questions that were
asked in the HINTS survey. For example, we did not have details
about specific health apps or features of apps used, the intensity
of use, whether the apps were interactive and linked to other
health promotion supports (eg, telehealth), and other strategies
used for health behavior change. Despite these limitations, the
results did identify areas for future research and add to the
knowledge base about predictors of the use of health apps.

Conclusions
Compared with previous studies, many individual
sociodemographic factors are becoming less important in
influencing engagement with mobile devices and health app
use; however, differences persist for gender, age, and
educational attainment. As health care undergoes technological
transformation with its electronic health records systems and
individuals’ access to their records, there are many opportunities
for clinical care models to be expanded and improved, perhaps
through the use of apps as a means for sharing data, although
this remains an unanswered question. This study contributes to
the literature by providing up-to-date information on populations
most and least likely to use health apps to guide clinical
interventions, commercial developers, and public health
programs when designing eHealth technology.

Conflicts of Interest
None declared.

References

1. Ericsson. 2015. Ericsson Mobility Report: On the pulse of the networked society URL:http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/
2015/ericsson-mobility-report-june-2015 [accessed 2016-01-22] [WebCite Cache ID 6ejSFiicz]

2. OfCom. 2015. Smartphone usage URL:http://media.ofcom.org.uk/facts/ [accessed 2016-01-22] [WebCite Cache ID
6ejSSqrN7]

3. OfCom. Belfast: OfCom; 2014. Telecommunications facts and figures URL:https://www.ofcom.org.uk/ [accessed 2017-02-27]
[WebCite Cache ID 6ob5yNLrU]

4. Smith A. Pew Research Center. 2015. The Smartphone Difference URL:http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/
us-smartphone-use-in-2015/ [accessed 2017-02-28] [WebCite Cache ID 6ejS9bn6M]

5. Boudreaux ED, Waring ME, Hayes RB, Sadasivam RS, Mullen S, Pagoto S. Evaluating and selecting mobile health apps:
strategies for healthcare providers and healthcare organizations. Transl Behav Med 2014 Dec;4(4):363-371 [FREE Full
text] [doi: 10.1007/s13142-014-0293-9] [Medline: 25584085]

6. Research2guidance. Research2guidance URL:http://research2guidance.com [accessed 2016-01-22] [WebCite Cache ID
6ejS4CO9X]

7. Fox S, Duggan M. Pew Research Center. Mobile Health 2012: Half of smartphone owners use their devices to get health
informationone-fifth of smartphone owners have health apps URL:http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/08/
mobile-health-2012/ [accessed 2017-02-27] [WebCite Cache ID 6ob6C9mfG]

8. Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, Carroll JK, Irwin A, Hoving C. A new dimension of health care: systematic review
of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. J Med Internet Res 2013;15(4):e85 [FREE
Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.1933] [Medline: 23615206]

9. Zhu F, Bosch M, Woo I, Kim S, Boushey CJ, Ebert DS, et al. The use of mobile devices in aiding dietary assessment and
evaluation. IEEE J Sel Top Signal Process 2010 Aug;4(4):756-766 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1109/JSTSP.2010.2051471]
[Medline: 20862266]

10. Mosa AS, Yoo I, Sheets L. A systematic review of healthcare applications for smartphones. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
2012;12:67 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-12-67] [Medline: 22781312]

11. O’Malley G, Dowdall G, Burls A, Perry IJ, Curran N. Exploring the usability of a mobile app for adolescent obesity
management. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2014;2(2):e29 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mhealth.3262] [Medline: 25098237]

12. O’Malley G, Clarke M, Burls A, Murphy S, Murphy N, Perry IJ. A smartphone intervention for adolescent obesity: study
protocol for a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Trials 2014;15:43 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-43]
[Medline: 24485327]

13. Knight E, Stuckey MI, Prapavessis H, Petrella RJ. Public health guidelines for physical activity: is there an app for that?
A review of android and apple app stores. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2015;3(2):e43 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/mhealth.4003]
[Medline: 25998158]

14. Pagoto S, Schneider K, Jojic M, DeBiasse M, Mann D. Evidence-based strategies in weight-loss mobile apps. Am J Prev
Med 2013 Nov;45(5):576-582. [doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.04.025] [Medline: 24139770]

15. Breton ER, Fuemmeler BF, Abroms LC. Weight loss-there is an app for that! But does it adhere to evidence-informed
practices? Transl Behav Med 2011 Dec;1(4):523-529 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1007/s13142-011-0076-5] [Medline:
24073074]

J Med Internet Res 2017 | vol. 19 | iss. 4 | e125 | p. 8http://www.jmir.org/2017/4/e125/
(page number not for citation purposes)

Carroll et alJOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH
XSL•FO
RenderX

http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2015/ericsson-mobility-report-june-2015

http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2015/ericsson-mobility-report-june-2015

http://www.webcitation.org/
6ejSFiicz

http://media.ofcom.org.uk/facts/

http://www.webcitation.org/
6ejSSqrN7

http://www.webcitation.org/
6ejSSqrN7

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/

http://www.webcitation.org/
6ob5yNLrU

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/

http://www.webcitation.org/
6ejS9bn6M

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/25584085

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/25584085

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13142-014-0293-9

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=25584085&dopt=Abstract

Homepage

http://www.webcitation.org/
6ejS4CO9X

http://www.webcitation.org/
6ejS4CO9X

http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/08/mobile-health-2012/

http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/08/mobile-health-2012/

http://www.webcitation.org/
6ob6C9mfG

http://www.jmir.org/2013/4/e85/

http://www.jmir.org/2013/4/e85/

http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1933

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=23615206&dopt=Abstract

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/20862266

http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JSTSP.2010.2051471

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=20862266&dopt=Abstract

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/12/67

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-12-67

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=22781312&dopt=Abstract

http://mhealth.jmir.org/2014/2/e29/

http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.3262

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=25098237&dopt=Abstract

http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/15//43

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-43

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=24485327&dopt=Abstract

http://mhealth.jmir.org/2015/2/e43/

http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.4003

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=25998158&dopt=Abstract

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.04.025

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=24139770&dopt=Abstract

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/24073074

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13142-011-0076-5

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=24073074&dopt=Abstract

http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL

http://www.renderx.com/

16. Abroms LC, Padmanabhan N, Thaweethai L, Phillips T. iPhone apps for smoking cessation: a content analysis. Am J Prev
Med 2011 Mar;40(3):279-285 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.10.032] [Medline: 21335258]

17. Eng DS, Lee JM. The promise and peril of mobile health applications for diabetes and endocrinology. Pediatr Diabetes
2013 Jun;14(4):231-238 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1111/pedi.12034] [Medline: 23627878]

18. Kontos E, Blake KD, Chou WS, Prestin A. Predictors of eHealth usage: insights on the digital divide from the Health
Information National Trends Survey 2012. J Med Internet Res 2014;16(7):e172 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.3117]
[Medline: 25048379]

19. McCully SN, Don BP, Updegraff JA. Using the Internet to help with diet, weight, and physical activity: results from the
Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). J Med Internet Res 2013;15(8):e148 [FREE Full text] [doi:
10.2196/jmir.2612] [Medline: 23906945]

20. HINTS. 2015. Health Information National Trends Survey URL:http://hints.cancer.gov/ [accessed 2016-01-22] [WebCite
Cache ID 6ejRyxj9Y]

21. Finney RL, Hesse BW, Moser RP, Ortiz MA, Kornfeld J, Vanderpool RC, et al. Socioeconomic and geographic disparities
in health information seeking and Internet use in Puerto Rico. J Med Internet Res 2012 Jul;14(4):e104 [FREE Full text]
[doi: 10.2196/jmir.2007] [Medline: 22849971]

22. Kontos EZ, Bennett GG, Viswanath K. Barriers and facilitators to home computer and internet use among urban novice
computer users of low socioeconomic position. J Med Internet Res 2007;9(4):e31 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.9.4.e31]
[Medline: 17951215]

Abbreviations
HINTS: Health Information National Trends Survey

Edited by G Eysenbach; submitted 04.02.16; peer-reviewed by J Updegraff, A Burls, B Fuemmeler; comments to author 06.04.16;
revised version received 18.05.16; accepted 21.06.16; published 19.04.17

Please cite as:
Carroll JK, Moorhead A, Bond R, LeBlanc WG, Petrella RJ, Fiscella K
Who Uses Mobile Phone Health Apps and Does Use Matter? A Secondary Data Analytics Approach
J Med Internet Res 2017;19(4):e125
URL: http://www.jmir.org/2017/4/e125/
doi: 10.2196/jmir.5604
PMID: 28428170

©Jennifer K Carroll, Anne Moorhead, Raymond Bond, William G LeBlanc, Robert J Petrella, Kevin Fiscella. Originally published
in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 19.04.2017. This is an open-access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet
Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/,
as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

J Med Internet Res 2017 | vol. 19 | iss. 4 | e125 | p. 9http://www.jmir.org/2017/4/e125/
(page number not for citation purposes)

Carroll et alJOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH
XSL•FO
RenderX

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/21335258

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.10.032

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=21335258&dopt=Abstract

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/23627878

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pedi.12034

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=23627878&dopt=Abstract

http://www.jmir.org/2014/7/e172/

http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3117

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=25048379&dopt=Abstract

http://www.jmir.org/2013/8/e148/

http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2612

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=23906945&dopt=Abstract

http://hints.cancer.gov/

http://www.webcitation.org/
6ejRyxj9Y

http://www.webcitation.org/
6ejRyxj9Y

http://www.jmir.org/2012/4/e104/

http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2007

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=22849971&dopt=Abstract

http://www.jmir.org/2007/4/e31/

http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9.4.e31

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17951215&dopt=Abstract

http://www.jmir.org/2017/4/e125/

http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5604

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=28428170&dopt=Abstract

http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL

http://www.renderx.com/