Tailoring mHealth Apps on Users to Support Behavior Change Interventions: Conceptual and Computational Considerations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled "Tailoring mHealth apps on users to support behavior change interventions: conceptual and computational considerations" presents the design choices behind the implementation of new functionalities in MoveUp, a mHealth app to support frail people in achieving satisfying levels of physical activity. A method to group users according to their performance has been proposed to be exploited to promote joint training sessions among peers. The approach defines a profiling function through which new services can be incorporated into mHealth apps to increase their acceptance level by users. A preliminary evaluation of the user experience was made.

The manuscript is well written and easy to follow. The proposed method is technically sound and appropriately described. The proposed method has a straightforward, practical application in the health sector. Moreover, some user experience analysis was conducted, although on a limited number of participants. The conclusions discuss the limitations of the presented study, and future research directions are also provided.

Here are some comments I would like the authors to address before the manuscript is considered for publication:

1. In its current form, the paper resembles more a technical study and product introduction than an original research article. Please, better emphasize the originality and novelty of the proposed approach in the context of the existing research.
2. The abstract should contain a more detailed description of the conducted study, the obtained results, and main conclusions. Please extend the abstract with these points.
3. Please improve the readability of the data in Figure 1, Figure 3, and Figure 4. In the current form, significant zooming is required in these figures.
4. The user experience analysis based only on the total number of 13 participants is very questionable. The authors should address this issue.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper covers a pertinent topic and is well structured. The methodology of the study is well presented and there is relevant empirical work. However, the literature review and discussion of the results presents vulnerabilities that should be improved by the authors.

Improvement suggestions:

1. The abstract should be improved to present the main characteristics of the novel approach.
2. I recommend the authors to support this sentence in more than one reference “Indeed, one of the most challenging field of application is mHealth, concerning the exploitation of mobile computing and communication technologies in health care and public health”
3. It would be relevant to provide more information regarding the main goals of the PERCIVAL project.
4. The association between Personalization and its impact in creating a positive UX is not clear. Regarding this point, the authors state “Personalization, meant as the incorporation of recognizable aspects of a person into tailored content [7], is a key aspect to be incorporated into mHealth solutions to promote behavioral change [8] and positive UX.” The last point regarding positive UX is not well established.
5. The concept of user experience is not sufficiently explored. Please use more recent literature to present and support this concept.
6. This sentence is very pertinent but it is not deeply explored “Despite these great opportunities, wearables services are still behind elderly expectations”
7. Authors note “In [23] a very detailed and extensive categorization 80 of mobile apps on the market has been proposed, grouping them into 18 clusters”. It is not clear how these clusters are organized.
8. The link for the WHO guidelines should be provided in this sentence: “The final aim of the app is supporting the user to reach (and maintain) the amount of 600 MET of PA per week prescribed by WHO guidelines.”
9. Authors report “Only 6 of 13 participants have completed the one week evaluation. This is coherent with literature about the mHealth acceptance by target users.” It is not clear the literature the authors are referring because it is not cited.
10. Authors state that the applied questionnaire was inspired by study [45]. However, in the text it gives the idea the authors use the same questionnaire as adopted in [45]. Please clarify this issue. Is it the same or not? If not, what changes have been performed?
11. The discussion of results is very weak. In fact, the presentation of the results is good but they are not properly discussed considering the literature in this field.
12. Authors should better explored the main practical implications of their work.
13. Authors should also present the limitation of their study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed my comments.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your appreciation.

Reviewer 2 Report

Minor improvement suggestions:

- Authors note “With respect to the mHealth domain, it is known that acceptance level is low”. Which kind of referential is adopted?

- Authors note “…based on users’ wishes [49]”. It is not clear if it is users’ whishes or needs. Please check it.

- Authors present the theoretical and practical contributions of their study. However, policy implications are not explicitly addressed.

- The last two pages of the manuscript are empty and, therefore, can be deleted.

Author Response

Minor improvement suggestions:

- Authors note “With respect to the mHealth domain, it is known that acceptance level is low”. Which kind of referential is adopted?

• Thanks for your comment. Previous reference was wrong. We have corrected it.

- Authors note “…based on users’ wishes [49]”. It is not clear if it is users’ whishes or needs. Please check it.

• Thanks for your comment. “Needs” is more correct. We have corrected the text accordingly.

-   Authors present the theoretical and practical contributions of their study. However, policy implications are not explicitly addressed.

• Thanks for your comment. We have extended the “Discussion” section to take care of this issue. We have discussed our approach with respect to the dimensions of mHealth apps personalization proposed by Gosetto et al (2020).

- The last two pages of the manuscript are empty and, therefore, can be deleted.

• Thanks for your comment. There was a problem with the mdpi.cls latex style. We have fixed it now.