App Price Research Articles

A discrete choice experiment to examine the factors influencing consumers' willingness to purchase health apps.

The benefits of health apps can only be realized when consumers purchase them for use. Thus, it is important to understand what factors influence consumers' willingness to purchase health apps. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the influence of health app attributes and sociodemographic characteristics on consumers' willingness to purchase health apps, and how the value of the health app attributes varies for individuals with different sociodemographic characteristics. A questionnaire-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted with a random sample of 561 adults. A standard logit regression was applied to assess the influence of health app attributes and sociodemographic characteristics on consumers' willingness to purchase health apps, and marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) was calculated for each factor using regression coefficients. Interaction effects were also examined to determine how the value of health app attributes varies by sociodemographic characteristics. Usefulness, ease of use, security and privacy, and attitudes of healthcare professionals toward consumers' use of health apps were the attributes of health apps that positively influenced consumers' willingness to purchase them. Conversely, smartphone storage consumption, mobile Internet data consumption, and app price negatively influenced consumers' willingness to purchase the apps. For sociodemographic characteristics, being male, having a household size greater than three, having a monthly household income of HK$30,000 or more, having a lower education level (below diploma), having previously used health apps, and having previously purchased health apps were associated with a higher willingness to purchase health apps. Health app attributes that influenced consumers' willingness to purchase the apps and populations that were less willing to purchase health apps were identified. Efforts should be made to improve health app attributes and enhance the promotion of health apps among these underserved populations.

Economic Evaluation of Digital Therapeutic Care Apps for Unsupervised Treatment of Low Back Pain: Monte Carlo Simulation.

Digital therapeutic care (DTC) programs are unsupervised app-based treatments that provide video exercises and educational material to patients with nonspecific low back pain during episodes of pain and functional disability. German statutory health insurance can reimburse DTC programs since 2019, but evidence on efficacy and reasonable pricing remains scarce. This paper presents a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to evaluate the efficacy and cost-utility of a DTC app against treatment as usual (TAU) in Germany. The aim of this study was to perform a PSA in the form of a Monte Carlo simulation based on the deterministic base case analysis to account for model assumptions and parameter uncertainty. We also intend to explore to what extent the results in this probabilistic analysis differ from the results in the base case analysis and to what extent a shortage of outcome data concerning quality-of-life (QoL) metrics impacts the overall results. The PSA builds upon a state-transition Markov chain with a 4-week cycle length over a model time horizon of 3 years from a recently published deterministic cost-utility analysis. A Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations and a cohort size of 10,000 was employed to evaluate the cost-utility from a societal perspective. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived from Veterans RAND 6-Dimension (VR-6D) and Short-Form 6-Dimension (SF-6D) single utility scores. Finally, we also simulated reducing the price for a 3-month app prescription to analyze at which price threshold DTC would result in being the dominant strategy over TAU in Germany. The Monte Carlo simulation yielded on average a €135.97 (a currency exchange rate of EUR €1=US $1.069 is applicable) incremental cost and 0.004 incremental QALYs per person and year for the unsupervised DTC app strategy compared to in-person physiotherapy in Germany. The corresponding incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) amounts to an additional €34,315.19 per additional QALY. DTC yielded more QALYs in 54.96% of the iterations. DTC dominates TAU in 24.04% of the iterations for QALYs. Reducing the app price in the simulation from currently €239.96 to €164.61 for a 3-month prescription could yield a negative ICUR and thus make DTC the dominant strategy, even though the estimated probability of DTC being more effective than TAU is only 54.96%. Decision-makers should be cautious when considering the reimbursement of DTC apps since no significant treatment effect was found, and the probability of cost-effectiveness remains below 60% even for an infinite willingness-to-pay threshold. More app-based studies involving the utilization of QoL outcome parameters are urgently needed to account for the low and limited precision of the available QoL input parameters, which are crucial to making profound recommendations concerning the cost-utility of novel apps.

Availability, content and quality of commercially available smartphone applications for the self-management of low back pain: a systematic assessment

Purpose Explore smartphone apps that may be recommended by clinicians for the self-management of low back pain. Methods Prospectively registered systematic assessment of self-contained apps for self-management of low back pain on the Google Play and Apple App stores (Oceania), including ≥1 NICE low back pain and sciatica clinical guideline-recommended component and functioning without health professional input. Outcomes were quality (Mobile App Rating Scale; MARS), and self-management (Self-Management Support Checklist; SMS-14) and behaviour change potential (App Behaviour Change Scale; ABACUS). Results 25 apps were included. The average quality of included apps was acceptable (Mean MARS score of 3.9 out of a maximum possible 5). The self-management support and behaviour change potential of included apps appeared low (mean SMS-14 score was 3.4/14; mean ABACUS score was 5.4/21). The apps showed no significant correlation between app consumer ratings and MARS scores. App quality was significantly correlated with app price (p = 0.049) but not consumer ratings, however, these findings were based on a small number of studies and the overall model was not significant. Conclusions Smartphone apps for the self-management of low back pain are of average to good quality, with questionable potential for self-management and behaviour change. Clinicians should consider that few apps were designed to specifically incorporate self-management support and behaviour change potential when recommending apps to clients. Further development in these areas of app design would be of benefit. Implications for Rehabilitation Smartphone apps have the potential to improve LBP self-management outcomes, however, apps are not well regulated and the quality of information and advice provided is often low quality. The findings from this systematic assessment indicate that LBP self-management apps have limited self-management support and behaviour change potential features. Recommendation of current smartphone apps for LBP should take into consideration that although apps are of acceptable quality they are not specifically designed with self-management support and behaviour change principles. App quality does not appear to be associated with consumer ratings, however, there may be a positive association between app price and quality which requires further investigation.

The Antitrust Case Against the Apple App Store

ABSTRACT The Apple App Store is the only channel through which app developers may distribute their apps on iOS. First launched in 2008, the App Store has evolved into a highly profitable marketplace, with overall consumer spend exceeding $50 billion in 2019. However, concerns are being increasingly expressed on both sides of the Atlantic that various practices of Apple with regard to the App Store may breach competition law. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether this is indeed the case and, if so, how these concerns can be addressed. With these aims in mind, the paper first introduces the reader to the app ecosystem and the Apple App Store, with a focus on Apple’s in-app payment policies and the 30 percent commission charged for in-app purchases. After engaging critically with the distinction between apps selling “digital” and apps selling “physical” goods or services, we consider such distinction is unclear, artificial, and unprincipled. The paper then critically reviews several practices of Apple that appear to be at odds with competition law and in particular Article 102 TFEU. We first analyze the issue of market definition and dominance with regard to the App Store. We find that Apple is a monopolist in the market for app distribution on iOS, as it is not subject to any meaningful competitive constraint from alternative distribution channels, such as Android app stores. The result is that Apple is the gateway through which app developers have to go to reach the valuable audience of iOS users. This bottleneck position affords Apple the power to engage in several prima facie anticompetitive practices. A first concern is that Apple may exploit app developers by charging excessive fees for the services it provides and by imposing unfair trading conditions. Second, based on four case studies, the paper illustrates how Apple may use its control of the App Store or iOS to engage in exclusionary behavior to the detriment of rival apps. These practices should be investigated by competition authorities, as they are likely to result in considerable consumer harm, be it in the form of higher app prices, worse user experience or reduced consumer choice. The paper finally proposes a combination of concrete remedies that would address the competition concerns identified.

The Antitrust Case against the Apple App Store (Revisited)

The Apple App Store is the only channel through which app developers may distribute their apps on iOS. First launched in 2008, the App Store has evolved into a highly profitable marketplace, with overall consumer spend exceeding $ 50 billion in 2019. However, concerns are being increasingly expressed on both sides of the Atlantic that various practices of Apple with regard to the App Store may breach competition law. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether this is indeed the case and, if so, how these concerns can be addressed. With these aims in mind, the paper first introduces the reader to the app ecosystem and the Apple App Store, with a focus on Apple’s in-app payment policies and the 30% commission charged for in-app purchases. After engaging critically with the distinction between apps selling “digital” and apps selling “physical” goods or services, we consider such distinction is unclear, artificial, and unprincipled. The paper then critically reviews several practices of Apple that appear to be at odds with competition law and in particular Article 102 TFEU. We first discuss the issue of market definition and dominance with regard to the App Store. We find that Apple is a monopolist in the market for app distribution on iOS, as it is not subject to any meaningful competitive constraint from alternative distribution channels, such as Android app stores. The result is that Apple is the gateway through which app developers have to go in order to reach the valuable audience of iOS users. This bottleneck position affords Apple the power to engage in several prima facie anti-competitive practices. A first concern is that Apple may exploit app developers by charging excessive fees for the services it provides and by imposing unfair trading conditions. Second, based on four case studies, the paper illustrates how Apple may use its control of the App Store or iOS to engage in exclusionary behaviour to the detriment of rival apps. These practices should be investigated by competition authorities, as they are likely to result in considerable consumer harm, be it in the form of higher app prices, worse user experience or reduced consumer choice. The paper finally proposes a combination of concrete remedies that would address the competition concerns identified.

Antitrust in the Consumer Platform Economy: How Apple Has Abused its Mobile Platform Dominance

Consumer tech platforms such as Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook form indispensable parts of the modern economy. While their growing dominance increasingly threatens competition and consumer welfare, the outdated thinking behind current American antitrust law impedes enforcement against their abuse of power. The story of how Apple, which controls a critical gateway to the digital economy, has leveraged its dominance over the smartphone platform market to harm competition and deter the rise of future platforms provides salutary lessons and calls for special antitrust scrutiny for powerful tech platforms. This Note analyzes Apple’s violations of American antitrust law to inform ongoing litigation and investigations. It traces how Apple has abused its control of the App Store and the smartphone platform market through illegal tying and monopolistic refusal to deal, both hitherto under-studied issues. In forcing a supra-competitive 30% tax on third-party apps, blocking competitors, and favoring its own apps over rivals’, Apple’s anti-competitive practices have not only raised smartphone app prices and stunted innovation, but have also prolonged and expanded its monopoly by deterring future platforms from emerging. Using a Less Restrictive Alternative approach, the Note shows claimed benefits of Apple’s conduct are either pre-textual or unnecessarily restrictive. This Note also updates antitrust law by examining how the consumer platform economy has upended assumptions underlying traditional antitrust doctrines. Building on modern economics literature, it finds consumers and small businesses’ resource limitations, ecosystem lock-ins, and multi-layered networks create extraordinary information and switching costs, which give tech platforms immense power that their market share numbers belie. They also give platforms strong incentives to leverage their monopoly power outward, causing irreversible harm. These findings challenge traditional antitrust assumptions about rationality, market efficiency, and lack of entry barriers, which give an overly charitable view of dominant firms, and call for a rethinking of the current regime. The Note closes by proposing changes to current antitrust doctrines and enforcement. It is high time that courts reconsidered their hostility to monopoly leveraging and refusal to deal claims. Adjusting class action threshold to account for the diverse impacts of platform abuse of dominance will be critical to ensure private enforcement viability. Federal antitrust enforcement agencies will also need to step up with their resource and incentive advantages to aggressively push for evidence-finding, expanding antitrust doctrines, and helping small players where private plaintiffs fall short.

The Antitrust Case Against Apple

This article explores several potential antitrust claims against Apple - namely tying, essential facilities, refusal to deal and monopoly leveraging. We argue that the Apple ecosystem's large revenue share in terms of app transactions, lock-in effects and consumers' behavioral bias in online markets give the iPhone maker monopoly power as a mobile platform. Apple has exploited its market power to illegally tie the distribution of digital goods to its proprietary in-app purchase system to impose a 30% tax and extract supracompetitive profits, leading to higher app prices and reduced innovation. Moreover, Apple has excluded rivals and favored its own apps by downgrading competitors' discovery and promotions, blocking certain rivals entirely from the App Store, and limiting others' access to key APIs, in some cases right after copying their apps. In conjunction with the discriminatory application of the 30% tax, Apple's conduct towards major multi-homing apps such as Spotify reduces cross-platform competition with Android. These anticompetitive practices prolong and expand Apple's monopoly at the expense of competition.

The Antitrust Case Against the Apple App Store

The Apple App Store is the only channel through which app developers may distribute their apps on iOS. First launched in 2008, the App Store has evolved into a highly profitable marketplace, with overall consumer spend exceeding $ 50 billion in 2019. However, concerns are increasingly expressed on both sides of the Atlantic that various practices of Apple with regard to the App Store may breach competition law. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether this is indeed the case and, if so, how these concerns can be addressed. With these aims in mind, the paper first introduces the reader to the app ecosystem and the Apple App Store, with a focus on the controversial 30% commission charged for in-app purchases. After engaging critically with various public statements of Apple discussing the services that the 30% commission aims to cover, the paper concludes that the 30% commission is charged for payment processing and related services and not, as Apple asserts, for distribution, since in that case it would be charged on all apps distributed on the App Store and not only on apps delivering “digital goods and services”. The paper then critically reviews several practices of Apple that appear to be at odds with competition law and in particular Article 102 TFEU. We first discuss the issue of market definition and dominance with regard to the App Store. We find that Apple is a monopolist in the market for app distribution on iOS, as it is not subject to any meaningful competitive constraint from alternative distribution channels, such as Android app stores or the web. The result is that Apple is the gateway through which app developers have to go in order to reach the valuable audience of iOS users. This bottleneck position affords Apple the power to engage in several prima facie anti-competitive practices. First, Apple exploits app developers by charging excessive fees for the services it provides, applying its guidelines in a capricious and discriminatory manner, and depriving them of the user data they need to improve the quality of their services and user experience. Second, based on four case studies, the paper illustrates how Apple may use its control of the App Store or iOS to engage in exclusionary behaviour to the detriment of rival apps. Third, the paper shows that Apple may have also engaged in discriminatory practices by treating some app developers more favourably. These practices should be investigated by competition authorities, as they are likely to result in considerable consumer harm, be it in the form of higher app prices, worse user experience or reduced consumer choice. The paper finally proposes a combination of concrete remedies that would address the competition concerns identified.

Effects of app pricing structures on product evaluations

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the marketing literature and practice by examining the effect of product pricing on consumer behaviours with regard to the assertiveness and the sentiments expressed in their product reviews. In addition, the paper uses new data collection and machine learning tools that can also be extended for other research of online consumer reviewing behaviours. Design/methodology/approach Using web crawling techniques, a large data set was extracted from the Google Play Store. Following this, the authors created machine learning algorithms to identify topics from product reviews and to quantify assertiveness and sentiments from the review texts. Findings The results indicate that product pricing models affect consumer review sentiment, assertiveness and topics. Removing upfront payment obligations positively impacts the overall and pricing specific consumer sentiment and reduces assertiveness. Research limitations/implications The results reveal new effects of pricing models on the nature of consumer reviews of products and form a basis for future research. The study was conducted in the gaming category of the Google Play Store and the generalisability of the findings for other app segments or marketplaces should be further tested. Originality/value The findings can help companies that create digital products in choosing a pricing strategy for their apps. The paper is the first to investigate how pricing modes affect the nature of online reviews written by consumers.

Medication Adherence Apps: Review and Content Analysis.

BackgroundMedication adherence is an expensive and damaging problem for patients and health care providers. Patients adhere to only 50% of drugs prescribed for chronic diseases in developed nations. Digital health has paved the way for innovative smartphone solutions to tackle this challenge. However, despite numerous apps available claiming to improve adherence, a thorough review of adherence apps has not been carried out to date.ObjectiveThe aims of this study were to (1) review medication adherence apps available in app repositories in terms of their evidence base, medical professional involvement in development, and strategies used to facilitate behavior change and improve adherence and (2) provide a system of classification for these apps.MethodsIn April 2015, relevant medication adherence apps were identified by searching the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store using a combination of relevant search terms. Data extracted included app store source, app price, documentation of health care professional (HCP) involvement during app development, and evidence base for each respective app. Free apps were downloaded to explore the strategies used to promote medication adherence. Testing involved a standardized medication regimen of three reminders over a 4-hour period. Nonadherence features designed to enhance user experience were also documented.ResultsThe app repository search identified a total of 5881 apps. Of these, 805 fulfilled the inclusion criteria initially and were tested. Furthermore, 681 apps were further analyzed for data extraction. Of these, 420 apps were free for testing, 58 were inaccessible and 203 required payment. Of the 420 free apps, 57 apps were developed with HCP involvement and an evidence base was identified in only 4 apps. Of the paid apps, 9 apps had HCP involvement, 1 app had a documented evidence base, and 1 app had both. In addition, 18 inaccessible apps were produced with HCP involvement, whereas 2 apps had a documented evidence base. The 420 free apps were further analyzed to identify strategies used to improve medication adherence. This identified three broad categories of adherence strategies, reminder, behavioral, and educational. A total of 250 apps utilized a single method, 149 apps used two methods, and only 22 apps utilized all three methods.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically review all available medication adherence apps on the two largest app repositories. The results demonstrate a concerning lack of HCP involvement in app development and evidence base of effectiveness. More collaboration is required between relevant stakeholders to ensure development of high quality and relevant adherence apps with well-powered and robust clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of these interventions. A sound evidence base will encourage the adoption of effective adherence apps, and thus improve patient welfare in the process.

A Longitudinal Study of Google Play

The difficulty of large-scale monitoring of app markets affects our understanding of their dynamics. This is particularly true for dimensions such as app update frequency, control and pricing, the impact of developer actions on app popularity, as well as coveted membership in top app lists. In this paper, we perform a detailed temporal analysis on two datasets we have collected from the Google Play Store, one consisting of 160 000 apps and the other of 87 223 newly released apps. We have monitored and collected data about these apps over more than six months. Our results show that a high number of these apps have not been updated over the monitoring interval. Moreover, these apps are controlled by a few developers that dominate the total number of app downloads. We observe that infrequently updated apps significantly impact the median app price. However, a changing app price does not correlate with the download count. Furthermore, we show that apps that attain higher ranks have better stability in top app lists. We show that app market analytics can help detect emerging threat vectors, and identify search rank fraud and even malware. Further, we discuss the research implications of app market analytics on improving developer and user experiences.

How Do Apps Work? An Analysis of Physical Activity App Users' Perceptions of Behavior Change Mechanisms.

BackgroundPhysical activity apps are commonly used to increase levels of activity and health status. To date, the focus of research has been to determine the potential of apps to influence behavior, to ascertain the efficacy of a limited number of apps to change behavior, and to identify the characteristics of apps that users prefer.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to identify the mechanisms by which the use of physical activity apps may influence the users’ physical activity behavior.MethodsThis study used a cross-sectional survey of users of health-related physical activity apps during the past 6 months. An electronic survey was created in Qualtrics’ Web-based survey software and deployed on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Individuals who had used at least one physical activity app in the past 6 months were eligible to respond. The final sample comprised 207 adults living in the United States. 86.0% (178/207) of respondents were between the ages of 26 and 54 years, with 51.2% (106/207) of respondents being female. Behavior change theory informed the creation of 20 survey items relating to the mechanisms of behavior change. Respondents also reported about engagement with the apps, app likeability, and physical activity behavior.ResultsRespondents reported that using a physical activity app in the past 6 months resulted in a change in their attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and motivation. Engagement with the app (P<.001), frequency of app use (P=.03), and app price (P=.01) were related to the reported impact of the behavior change theory or mechanisms of change. The mechanisms of change were associated with self-reported physical activity behaviors (P<.001).ConclusionsThe findings from this study provide an overview of the mechanisms by which apps may impact behavior. App developers may wish to incorporate these mechanisms in an effort to increase impact. Practitioners should consider the extent to which behavior change theory is integrated into a particular app when they consider making recommendations to others wishing to increase levels of physical activity.

Users' Adoption of Mental Health Apps: Examining the Impact of Information Cues.

BackgroundNumerous mental health apps have been developed and made available to users on the current app market. Users may find it difficult and overwhelming to select apps from the hundreds of choices that are available in the app marketplace. Clarifying what information cues may impact a user’s selection and adoption of mental health apps is now a critical and pressing issue.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the impact of information cues on users’ adoption of anxiety apps using observational data from the Android app market.MethodsA systematic search of anxiety apps was conducted on the Android app store by using keywords search. The title and metadata information of a total of 274 apps that met our criteria were collected and analyzed. Three trained researchers recorded the app rankings from the search results page on different dates and Web browsers.ResultsOur results show that ratings (r=.56, P<.001) and reviews (r=.39, P<.001) have significant positive correlations with the number of installs, and app prices have significant negative correlations with installs (r=−.36). The results also reveal that lower-priced apps have higher ratings (r=−.23, P<.001) and a greater number of app permission requests (r=.18, P=.002) from the device. For app titles, we found that apps with titles related to symptoms have significantly lower installs than apps with titles that are not related to symptoms (P<.001).ConclusionsThis study revealed a relationship between information cues and users’ adoption of mental health apps by analyzing observational data. As the first of its kind, we found impactful indicators for mental health app adoptions. We also discovered a labeling effect of app titles that could hinder mental health app adoptions and which may provide insight for future designs of mental health apps and their search mechanisms.

Investigating the relationship between price, rating, and popularity in the Blackberry World App Store

Context: App stores provide a software development space and a market place that are both different from those to which we have become accustomed for traditional software development: The granularity is finer and there is a far greater source of information available for research and analysis. Information is available on price, customer rating and, through the data mining approach presented in this paper, the features claimed by app developers. These attributes make app stores ideal for empirical software engineering analysis.Objective: This paper11This paper is an extended version of our short paper at MSR 2012 [1]; a technical report is also available [2]. exploits App Store Analysis to understand the rich interplay between app customers and their developers.Method: We use data mining to extract app descriptions, price, rating, and popularity information from the Blackberry World App Store, and natural language processing to elicit each apps’ claimed features from its description.Results: The findings reveal that there are strong correlations between customer rating and popularity (rank of app downloads). We found evidence for a mild correlation between app price and the number of features claimed for the app and also found that higher priced features tended to be lower rated by their users. We also found that free apps have significantly (p-value < 0.001) higher ratings than non-free apps, with a moderately high effect size (A^12=0.68). All data from our experiments and analysis are made available on-line to support further investigations.

A Mobile Platform's In‐App Advertising Contract Under Agency Pricing for App Sales

Unlike advertising in traditional media, a mobile platform's in‐app advertising market exhibits two unique features—split structure of the mobile platform with a platform owner and an app developer jointly provisioning in‐app advertising, and agency pricing for app sales. We develop a two‐sided market model to analyze the role of these two unique features in determining the platform owner's optimal advertising revenue‐sharing contract. Our results reveal an interesting N‐shaped dynamic regarding the platform owner's optimal choice of her ad revenue share with respect to the overall advertisers’ valuation of in‐app ads. We identify a between‐agent subsidization strategy for the platform owner, where she finds it optimal to subsidize the developer via the advertising channel, leading to greater profits for both of them. We find that the advertising revenue‐sharing contract under agency pricing for app sales leads to a higher app price than would be offered by the integrated platform found in traditional advertising. However, the ad price is coordinated under the platform owner's optimal choice of ad revenue share when she obtains revenue from both the advertising and app sales channels, leading to an alignment of her interest with the app developer's on ad level.

Health Applications for Corporate Health Management.

Many corporate organizations around the world are looking at new ways to improve the health and well-being of their employees. Many have begun to use m-health approaches and unique applications (apps) to provide assistance. In Germany, both m-health and occupational health management (OHM) are growing quickly. Therefore, we hypothesized that the combination-apps usage in OHM-is growing as well. We studied the usage of health apps in large corporations for health management of employed individuals. To understand the environment in Germany, a two-part study was conducted. First, an extensive literature search was done and second, interviews were conducted with 12 of the 20 biggest companies' health management representatives. Using key search terms, 5,445 peer-reviewed journal articles traced with German databases and on PubMed were reviewed. Interestingly and somewhat surprising to the authors, none of them covered our specific topic. Interviews were conducted with 60% of the companies indicated. Only 3 out of 12 companies use apps. Four companies are piloting apps. With one exception, apps cover well-known areas such as food coaching, physical motion, smoking cessation, stress prevention, and other health-related subjects. One app used sensors in work clothing to prevent unhealthy motion. With a few exceptions, there has been no evaluation of the utility and utilization of apps. Current app usage in corporate health management in Germany is surprisingly low. Apps need to be better evaluated. Main obstacles-which could be resolved in the future-are legal restrictions (especially on data security), the lack of company-owned smart phones, misfit of apps and corporate health strategy, a lack of app evaluation, and high app prices.

‘Gamification’ for Health Behaviour Change in Smartphone Apps

‘Gamification’ for Health Behaviour Change in Smartphone Apps

Health Behavior Theory in Physical Activity Game Apps: A Content Analysis.

BackgroundPhysical activity games developed for a mobile phone platform are becoming increasingly popular, yet little is known about their content or inclusion of health behavior theory (HBT).ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to quantify elements of HBT in physical activity games developed for mobile phones and to assess the relationship between theoretical constructs and various app features.MethodsWe conducted an analysis of exercise and physical activity game apps in the Apple App Store in the fall of 2014. A total of 52 apps were identified and rated for inclusion of health behavior theoretical constructs using an established theory-based rubric. Each app was coded for 100 theoretical items, containing 5 questions for 20 different constructs. Possible total theory scores ranged from 0 to 100. Descriptive statistics and Spearman correlations were used to describe the HBT score and association with selected app features, respectively.ResultsThe average HBT score in the sample was 14.98 out of 100. One outlier, SuperBetter, scored higher than the other apps with a score of 76. Goal setting, self-monitoring, and self-reward were the most-reported constructs found in the sample. There was no association between either app price and theory score (P=.5074), or number of gamification elements and theory score (P=.5010). However, Superbetter, with the highest HBT score, was also the most expensive app.ConclusionsThere are few content analyses of serious games for health, but a comparison between these findings and previous content analyses of non-game health apps indicates that physical activity mobile phone games demonstrate higher levels of behavior theory. The most common theoretical constructs found in this sample are known to be efficacious elements in physical activity interventions. It is unclear, however, whether app designers consciously design physical activity mobile phone games with specific constructs in mind; it may be that games lend themselves well to inclusion of theory and any constructs found in significant levels are coincidental. Health games developed for mobile phones could be potentially used in health interventions, but collaboration between app designers and behavioral specialists is crucial. Additionally, further research is needed to better characterize mobile phone health games and the relative importance of educational elements versus gamification elements in long-term behavior change.

Antecedents of mobile app usage among smartphone users

Although mobile apps are already an influential medium in the new media industry as a whole, these apps have received little academic attention within the communication and marketing literature. This study develops and tests a hypothesized model to explain antecedents affecting app usage among smartphone users. The analysis of the structural equation model determined a final model with four significant factors (perceived informative and entertaining usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user review). Cost-effectiveness, a key variable of this study due to the particularity of 99-cent app price, had no influence on app usage. This study not only includes marketing implications but also offers insight into various theoretical applications to the field of mobile communication research by suggesting a conceptual model for the acceptance of mobile apps.

Pricing a bestseller

The growth of mobile applications on smartphones and tablets ("apps") ranks as one of the most astonishing technological developments in recent past. Over 700,000 apps are available for immediate download from app markets (e.g., App Store and Google Play). These marketplaces are a significant disruptive change in the way content is created and consumed. On the supply side, they provide content creators direct, instantaneous, and popular distribution systems where they can implement their own marketing and pricing policies, cutting out middlemen. Taking a combined data-driven and structural analysis approach, this paper focuses on the relationship between pricing decisions and marketplace visibility. Our aim is to empower content creators by offering strategic guidance on how to leverage the marketplaces' exibility. Specifically, the market platforms feature "top-ranked" charts that list apps by number of downloads. A high position in these charts is followed by a remarkable boost in demand, according to industry sources. We call the effect of top-rank position on future sales an indirect effect. First, we postulate a reduced form model to estimate the magnitude of this indirect effect. Our results show that it is statistically significant and substantial. Second, we study app pricing decisions in a model that incorporates our earlier findings. Surprisingly, we find that accounting for the indirect effect may give rise to optimal price cycles, where the seller alternates between a high price to boost revenue and a low one to enhance visibility. We find evidence supporting this pricing behavior in practice.