Objective:While depression and anxiety are common mental health issues, only a small segment of the population has access to standard one-on-one treatment. The use of smartphone apps can fill this gap. An app recommender system may help improve user engagement of these apps and eventually symptoms. Methods:IntelliCare was a suite of apps for depression and anxiety, with a Hub app that provided app recommendations aiming to increase user engagement. This study captured the records of 8057 users of 12 apps. We measured overall engagement and app-specific usage longitudinally by the number of weekly app sessions ("loyalty") and the number of days with app usage ("regularity") over 16 weeks. Hub and non-Hub users were compared using zero-inflated Poisson regression for loyalty, linear regression for regularity, and Cox regression for engagement duration. Adjusted analyses were performed in 4561 users for whom we had baseline characteristics. Impact of Hub recommendations was assessed using the same approach. Results:When compared to non-Hub users in adjusted analyses, Hub users had a lower risk of discontinuing IntelliCare (hazard ratio = 0.67, 95% CI, 0.62-0.71), higher loyalty (2- to 5-fold), and higher regularity (0.1-0.4 day/week greater). Among Hub users, Hub recommendations increased app-specific loyalty and regularity in all 12 apps. Discussion/Conclusion:Centralized app recommendations increase overall user engagement of the apps, as well as app-specific usage. Further studies relating app usage to symptoms can validate that such a recommender improves clinical benefits and does so at scale.

Background

Treatments for depression and anxiety have several behavioral and psychological targets and rely on varied strategies. Digital mental health treatments often employ feature-rich approaches addressing several targets and strategies. These treatments, often optimized for desktop computer use, are at odds with the ways people use smartphone applications. Smartphone use tends to focus on singular functions with easy navigation to desired tools. The IntelliCare suite of apps was developed to address the discrepancy between need for diverse behavioral strategies and constraints imposed by typical app use. Each app focuses on one strategy for a limited subset of clinical aims all pertinent to depression and anxiety. This study presents the uptake and usage of apps from the IntelliCare suite following an open deployment on a large app marketplace.

Methods

Thirteen lightweight apps, including 12 interactive apps and one Hub app that coordinates use across those interactive apps, were developed and made free to download on the Google Play store. De-identified app usage data from the first year of IntelliCare suite deployment were analyzed for this study.

Results

In the first year of public availability, 5,210 individuals downloaded one or more of the IntelliCare apps, for a total of 10,131 downloads. Nearly a third of these individuals (31.8%) downloaded more than one of these apps. The modal number of launches for each of the apps was 1, however the mean number of app launches per app ranged from 3.10 to 16.98, reflecting considerable variability in the use of each app.

Conclusions

The use rate of the IntelliCare suite of apps is higher than public deployments of other comparable digital resources. Our findings suggest that people will use multiple apps and provides support for the concept of app suites as a useful strategy for providing diverse behavioral strategies.

Although group-level evidence supports the use of behavioral interventions to enhance cognitive and emotional well-being, different interventions may be more acceptable or effective for different people. N-of-1 trials are single-patient crossover trials designed to estimate treatment effectiveness in a single patient. We designed a mobile health (mHealth) supported N-of-1 trial platform permitting US adult volunteers to conduct their own 30-day self-experiments testing a behavioral intervention of their choice (deep breathing/meditation, gratitude journaling, physical activity, or helpful acts) on daily measurements of stress, focus, and happiness. We assessed uptake of the study, perceived usability of the N-of-1 trial system, and influence of results (both reported and perceived) on enthusiasm for the chosen intervention (defined as perceived helpfulness of the chosen intervention and intent to continue performing the intervention in the future). Following a social media and public radio campaign, 447 adults enrolled in the study and 259 completed the post-study survey. Most were highly educated. Perceived system usability was high (mean scale score 4.35/5.0, SD 0.57). Enthusiasm for the chosen intervention was greater among those with higher pre-study expectations that the activity would be beneficial for them (p < 0.001), those who obtained more positive N-of-1 results (as directly reported to participants) (p < 0.001), and those who interpreted their N-of-1 study results more positively (p < 0.001). However, reported results did not significantly influence enthusiasm after controlling for participants' interpretations. The interaction between pre-study expectation of benefit and N-of-1 results interpretation was significant (p < 0.001), such that those with the lowest starting pre-study expectations reported greater intervention enthusiasm when provided with results they interpreted as positive. We conclude that N-of-1 behavioral trials can be appealing to a broad albeit highly educated and mostly female audience, that usability was acceptable, and that N-of-1 behavioral trials may have the greatest utility among those most skeptical of the intervention to begin with.