Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Simplified Novel Application (SNApp) framework: a guide to developing and implementing second-generation mobile applications for behavioral health research

  • Case Study
  • Published:
Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Advances in mobile technology and mobile applications (apps) have opened up an exciting new frontier for behavioral health researchers, with a “second generation” of apps allowing for the simultaneous collection of multiple streams of data in real time. With this comes a host of technical decisions and ethical considerations unique to this evolving approach to research. Drawing on our experience developing a second-generation app for the simultaneous collection of text message, voice, and self-report data, we provide a framework for researchers interested in developing and using second-generation mobile apps to study health behaviors. Our Simplified Novel Application (SNApp) framework breaks the app development process into four phases: (1) information and resource gathering, (2) software and hardware decisions, (3) software development and testing, and (4) study start-up and implementation. At each phase, we address common challenges and ethical issues and make suggestions for effective and efficient app development. Our goal is to help researchers effectively balance priorities related to the function of the app with the realities of app development, human subjects issues, and project resource constraints.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. At the time of publication, open-source apps were available to collect data related to a variety of conditions, such as diabetes, asthma, Parkinson’s disease, cardiovascular disease, and breast cancer.

  2. Health researchers may be particularly interested in the Apple ResearchKit: www.apple.com/researchkit. It is an open-source framework that aids in the creation of apps for medical research by utilizing the sensors and processing power built in to iPhones.

  3. We have found the Massachusetts Institute of Technology resources (e.g., tutorials, forums) for developing Android applications to be particularly helpful: appinventor.mit.edu.

  4. Apple is more restrictive about what developers are allowed to alter about the phone and its standard functions (e.g., text message interception, low-level audio access). Developers have more flexibility to alter device functions to meet software needs with Android.

  5. Whereas both charge annual fees to develop and sell applications through their platforms (Apple $99, Google $25), Google allows non-market apps to be installed on Android devices. Apple’s “App Store” requires approval before an app can run on an iOS device, but an iOS developer can provision up to 100 devices (owned by the developer) per year for testing purposes without approval.

References

  1. Schwartz JE, Stone AA. The analysis of real-time momentary data: a practical guide. In: Stone AA, Shiffman S, Atienza AA, Nebeling L, eds. The science of real-time data capture: self-reports in health research. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007: 76-116.

  2. DiIorio C, Dudley WN, Soet JE, McCarty F. Sexual possibility situations and sexual behaviors among young adolescents: the moderating role of protective factors. J Adolesc Health. 2004; 35(6): 528-e511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. O’Donnell L, Myint‐U A, O’Donnell CR, Stueve A. Long‐term influence of sexual norms and attitudes on timing of sexual initiation among urban minority youth. J Sch Health. 2003; 73(2): 68-75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Santelli JS, Kaiser J, Hirsch L, Radosh A, Simkin L, Middlestadt S. Initiation of sexual intercourse among middle school adolescents: the influence of psychosocial factors. J Adolesc Health. 2004; 34(3): 200-208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2008; 4: 1-32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mehl MR. Eavesdropping on health: a naturalistic observation approach for social health research. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2007; 1(1): 359-380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dennison L, Morrison L, Conway G, Yardley L. Opportunities and challenges for smartphone applications in supporting health behavior change: qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. 2013; 15(4), e86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. McGillicuddy JW, Weiland AK, Frenzel RM, et al. Patient attitudes toward mobile phone-based health monitoring: questionnaire study among kidney transplant recipients. J Med Internet Res. 2013; 15(1), e6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Stewart DW, Shamdasani PN. Focus groups: theory and practice, vol. 20. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Maguire M. Methods to support human-centred design. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2001; 55(4): 587-634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nielsen. Smartphone switch: three-fourths of recent acquirers chose smartphones. 2013; http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2013/smartphone-switch--three-fourths-of-recent-acquirers-chose-smart.html. Accessed December 24, 2014.

  13. Nielsen. Multiplying mobile: how multicultural consumers are leading smartphone adoption. 2014; http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2014/multiplying-mobile-how-multicultural-consumers-are-leading-smartphone-adoption.html. Accessed Dec 24, 2014

  14. Pew Research Internet Project. Mobile technology fact sheet: highlights of the Pew Internet Project’s research related to mobile technology. 2014; http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/. Accessed Dec 24 2014

  15. Conner TS. Experience sampling and ecological momentary assessment with mobile phones. 2015; http://www.otago.ac.nz/psychology/otago047475.pdf. Accessed June 29 2015

  16. Ritter S. Apple’s ResearchKit development framework for iPhone apps enables innovative approaches to medical research data collection. J Clin Trials. 2015; 5, e120.

    Google Scholar 

  17. The connected enterprise: keeping pace with mobile development. Framingham, MA: CIO Strategic Marketing Services and Triangle Publishing Services Co. Inc.;2014.

  18. Nielsen. Mobile millennials: over 85% of generation Y owns smartphones. 2014; http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2014/mobile-millennials-over-85-percent-of-generation-y-owns-smartphones.html. Accessed Dec 24, 2014.

  19. Shiffman S, Hickcox M, Paty JA, Gnys M, Kassel JD, Richards TJ. Progression from a smoking lapse to relapse: prediction from abstinence violation effects, nicotine dependence, and lapse characteristics. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996; 64(5): 993-1002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Shiffman S, Scharf D, Shadel W, et al. Analyzing milestones in smoking cessation: an illustration from a randomized trial of high dose nicotine patch. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2006; 74: 276-285.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ritter FE, Baxter GD, Churchill EF. User-centered systems design: a brief history. Foundations for designing user-centered systems: Springer; 2014:33–54.

  22. Larman C, Basili VR. Iterative and incremental development: a brief history. Computer. 2003; 36(6): 47-56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Beck K, Beedle M, van Bennekum A, et al. Manifesto for Agile Software development. 2001; http://agilemanifesto.org/. Accessed Dec 24 2014.

  24. Cohen D, Lindvall M, Costa P. An introduction to agile methods. Adv Comput. 2004; 62: 1-66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Royce WW. Managing the development of large software systems. Paper presented at: proceedings of IEEE WESCON1970.

  26. Sommerville I. Software engineering. 10th ed. Boston: Addison-Wesley; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Boehm B. Get ready for agile methods, with care. Computer. 2002; 35(1): 64-69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Abrahamsson P, Warsta J, Siponen MT, Ronkainen J. New directions on agile methods: a comparative analysis. Paper presented at: Software Engineering, 2003. Proceedings. 25th International Conference on 2003.

  29. Dybå T, Dingsøyr T. Empirical studies of agile software development: a systematic review. Inf Softw Technol. 2008; 50(9): 833-859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Munassar NMA, Govardhan A. A comparison between five models of software engineering. IJCSI. 2010; 5: 95-101.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grant R21 HD067546-01A1 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development awarded to Deborah Scharf, Steven Martino, William Shadel, and Claude Setodji. The authors would like to thank Sarah Hauer, Stacey Gallaway, and Robert Hickam for their administrative support with the grant. They would also like to thank Matthias Mehl for his advice on how to use smartphones to capture speech.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Jennifer Fillo PhD, B. Lynette Staplefoote-Boynton MPH, Lisa Sontag-Padilla PhD, William G. Shadel PhD, Steven C. Martino PhD, Claude M. Setodji PhD & Deborah Scharf PhD

  2. Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    B. Lynette Staplefoote-Boynton MPH

  3. Department of Preventive Medicine and Pediatrics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Daniella Meeker PhD

  4. Department of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA

    Jennifer Fillo PhD

  5. Simcoe County District School Board, Midhurst, ON, Canada

    Deborah Scharf PhD

  6. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA

    Daniella Meeker PhD

  7. RAND Corporation, Arlington, VA, USA

    Angel Martinez MS

Authors
  1. Jennifer Fillo PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Lynette Staplefoote-Boynton MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angel Martinez MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lisa Sontag-Padilla PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. William G. Shadel PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Steven C. Martino PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Claude M. Setodji PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Daniella Meeker PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Deborah Scharf PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Fillo PhD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Adherence to ethical principles

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee. All authors completed human subjects training prior to conducting the research, and all authors maintained up-to-date training throughout the course of the project. All participants gave informed consent prior to participation in the research.

Additional information

Implications

Practice: Practitioners can apply methodological issues described here (e.g., design, testing, data protections) to self-monitoring and biofeedback interventions administered via smartphone.

Policy: When evaluating research proposals, institutional review boards need to consider whether researchers have adequately addressed the security issues unique to the handling of human subjects data collected in participants’ natural environments and saved and/or transmitted over smartphone devices.

Research: Behavioral health researchers should consider using the SNApp framework to help structure and simplify the process of developing and implementing second-generation (e.g., multimodal, increasingly complex) mobile applications for health-related research.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fillo, J., Staplefoote-Boynton, B.L., Martinez, A. et al. Simplified Novel Application (SNApp) framework: a guide to developing and implementing second-generation mobile applications for behavioral health research. Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res. 6, 587–595 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-015-0363-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-015-0363-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation