Advertisement

Translational Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 587–595 | Cite as

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

  • Jennifer Fillo
  • B. Lynette Staplefoote-Boynton
  • Angel Martinez
  • Lisa Sontag-Padilla
  • William G. Shadel
  • Steven C. Martino
  • Claude M. Setodji
  • Daniella Meeker
  • Deborah Scharf
Case Study

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.

Keywords

Mobile applications Software development Best practices Mhealth Methodology Health 

Notes

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.

Compliance with ethical standards

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.

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2008; 4: 1-32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mehl MR. Eavesdropping on health: a naturalistic observation approach for social health research. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2007; 1(1): 359-380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2014.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stewart DW, Shamdasani PN. Focus groups: theory and practice, vol. 20. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2015.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maguire M. Methods to support human-centred design. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2001; 55(4): 587-634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 17.
    The connected enterprise: keeping pace with mobile development. Framingham, MA: CIO Strategic Marketing Services and Triangle Publishing Services Co. Inc.;2014.Google Scholar
  18. 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. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ritter FE, Baxter GD, Churchill EF. User-centered systems design: a brief history. Foundations for designing user-centered systems: Springer; 2014:33–54.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Larman C, Basili VR. Iterative and incremental development: a brief history. Computer. 2003; 36(6): 47-56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Beck K, Beedle M, van Bennekum A, et al. Manifesto for Agile Software development. 2001; http://agilemanifesto.org/. Accessed Dec 24 2014.
  24. 24.
    Cohen D, Lindvall M, Costa P. An introduction to agile methods. Adv Comput. 2004; 62: 1-66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Royce WW. Managing the development of large software systems. Paper presented at: proceedings of IEEE WESCON1970.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sommerville I. Software engineering. 10th ed. Boston: Addison-Wesley; 2015.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boehm B. Get ready for agile methods, with care. Computer. 2002; 35(1): 64-69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dybå T, Dingsøyr T. Empirical studies of agile software development: a systematic review. Inf Softw Technol. 2008; 50(9): 833-859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Munassar NMA, Govardhan A. A comparison between five models of software engineering. IJCSI. 2010; 5: 95-101.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Fillo
    • 1
    • 4
  • B. Lynette Staplefoote-Boynton
    • 1
    • 2
  • Angel Martinez
    • 7
  • Lisa Sontag-Padilla
    • 1
  • William G. Shadel
    • 1
  • Steven C. Martino
    • 1
  • Claude M. Setodji
    • 1
  • Daniella Meeker
    • 3
    • 6
  • Deborah Scharf
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.RAND CorporationPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Wake Forest Baptist HealthWinston-SalemUSA
  3. 3.Department of Preventive Medicine and PediatricsUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyUniversity of HoustonHoustonUSA
  5. 5.Simcoe County District School BoardMidhurstCanada
  6. 6.RAND CorporationSanta MonicaUSA
  7. 7.RAND CorporationArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations