The Goldilocks Dilemma on Balancing User Response and Reflection in mHealth Interventions: Observational Study.

ABSTRACT

Background: Mobile health (mHealth) has the potential to radically improve health behaviors and quality of life; however, there are still key gaps in understanding how to optimize mHealth engagement. Most engagement research reports only on system use without consideration of whether the user is reflecting on the content cognitively. Although interactions with mHealth are critical, cognitive investment may also be important for meaningful behavior change. Notably, content that is designed to request too much reflection could result in users' disengagement. Understanding how to strike the balance between response burden and reflection burden has critical implications for achieving effective engagement to impact intended outcomes. Objective: In this observational study, we sought to understand the interplay between response burden and reflection burden and how they impact mHealth engagement. Specifically, we explored how varying the response and reflection burdens of mHealth content would impact users' text message response rates in an mHealth intervention. Methods: We recruited support persons of people with diabetes for a randomized controlled trial that evaluated an mHealth intervention for diabetes management. Support person participants assigned to the intervention (n=148) completed a survey and received text messages for 9 months. During the 2-year randomized controlled trial, we sent 4 versions of a weekly, two-way text message that varied in both reflection burden (level of cognitive reflection requested relative to that of other messages) and response burden (level of information requested for the response relative to that of other messages). We quantified engagement by using participant-level response rates. We compared the odds of responding to each text and used Poisson regression to estimate associations between participant characteristics and response rates. Results: The texts requesting the most reflection had the lowest response rates regardless of response burden (high reflection and low response burdens median 10%, IQR 0%-40%; high reflection and high response burdens median 23%, IQR 0%-51%). The response rate was highest for the text requesting the least reflection (low reflection and low response burdens median 90%, IQR 61%-100%) yet still relatively high for the text requesting medium reflection (medium reflection and low response burdens median 75%, IQR 38%-96%). Lower odds of responding were associated with higher reflection burden (P<.001). Younger participants and participants who had a lower socioeconomic status had lower response rates to texts with more reflection burden, relative to those of their counterparts (all P values were <.05). Conclusions: As reflection burden increased, engagement decreased, and we found more disparities in engagement across participants' characteristics. Content encouraging moderate levels of reflection may be ideal for achieving both cognitive investment and system use. Our findings provide insights into mHealth design and the optimization of both engagement and effectiveness.