Abstract
Background
Increased levels of wellbeing contribute to people being more productive, resilient, physically healthy and showing lower levels of mental illness. Using mobile apps to increase wellbeing in young people is becoming the method of choice. This study sought to critically appraise the current evidence base with regards to young people's (16–24 years of age) engagement with wellbeing apps.
Methods
A systematic review of the literature and narrative synthesis was conducted to investigate users’ characteristics and other potential engagement elements. A total of 11,245 titles, 160 abstracts and 68 full-text articles published between 2002 and 2021 were screened, of which 22 studies were included.
Results
Main themes/findings indicated that a user's engagement with wellbeing apps was dependant on the presence of strong identity elements, including motivation, mood and values; design elements such as meaningful rewards, short duration of studies and seamless automatic delivery with low contact with researchers; and being innovative and contextualised. The majority of the studies did not report outcomes by social determinants such as ethnicity, education and others.
Conclusion
This research reflects on the need to consider participants’ individuality when designing app mediated wellbeing interventions.
Introduction
Young people face numerous challenges when it comes to their mental health, with high levels of depression, anxiety, suicide and personality disorders reported.1,2 These conditions are aggravated by poor health behaviours including risk taking, drugs, alcohol and lack of physical activity, 3 all heightened by the recent COVID-19 pandemic, which has caused further mental health deterioration and risky behaviours in young people. 4 A novel way of addressing these issues developed over the last decade is using mobile health (mHealth – using current and emergent technologies to deliver and support treatment 5 ). It is generally considered that young people have a particular affinity to use technologies such as the internet and smartphones, with many researchers even considering them as ‘natural users’. 6 Given the intensity of mobile phone use by young people, the potential of using mobile applications (apps) for improving health must not be underestimated, 7 not only with regards to addressing diagnosable disorders but also at a behaviour modification level. 8 Mobile apps have been shown to be effective to support treatment in conditions such as diabetes, 9 smoking cessation,10,11 alcohol dependence, 12 weight management 13 as well as psychological distress.14–17 However, apps also provide new opportunities to address preventative and strength focused interventions to improve wellbeing levels. 18
Wellbeing is a broad concept that encompasses different areas, including psychological, emotional and physical dimensions.19,20 From a positive psychology (PP) perspective, high levels of wellbeing have been related to life satisfaction, positive emotion, higher productivity and increased life meaning, and in turn less psychological distress.19,21,22 Although the field is experiencing growth, within mHealth there are very few studies focusing on wellbeing as defined by PP as its own independent category. In that context, studies that use technology as the privileged medium to deliver those interventions to young people are even fewer, with poor engagement 23 and high attrition plaguing research. 24
As much as wellbeing apps have the potential to be effective, they remain fruitless if participants fail to engage. In an attempt to cast the net broadly apps are usually designed as ‘one-size-fits-all’ to cater for as many people as possible. 25 The results of doing this, however, are mixed and usually insufficient for apps in the wellbeing category. Different approaches to address this issue have been proposed; some focus on design such as usability 26 and gamification,7,27 while others are starting to look deeper into the individual differences of users. 28 The authors set out to understand individual user differences to explain why young people engage with wellbeing apps and provide insights into what could be done to increase engagement with these resources.
Method
A systematic review of 13 databases was undertaken to identify literature that focused on improving the wellbeing of young people using mobile apps. A narrative synthesis was completed to group together and describe those characteristics that contribute to engagement.
Search strategy
Studies were identified through a comprehensive search of multiple databases designed in consultation with a professional librarian (RD) in collaboration with the principal reviewer (GA) (see Appendix A for search results). The search strategy included searching titles, headings and text and was tested to ensure it captured the intended type of studies. Databases were consulted from 2002 until 2021; this date range was chosen as 2002 was the year a smartphone with extensive data connectivity was developed in the United States, 29 although smartphones as currently known took longer to develop it was decided to cover a higher date range to ensure all relevant studies were captured. The databases consulted for this review were: ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Informit, ProQuest, Cochrane Library, Pub-Med, Current Contents Connect, Web of Science Collection, Scopus, Medline (Ovid), Psychinfo (Ovid) and CINAHL. No limitations on place of publication were used; however, the search was limited to only those studies published in English. A search using specialised databases: NDLTD- Cochrane library, ISRCTN, ANZCTR, APA PsycExtra, Open Grey, HSE, CADTH, AHRQ as well as manually searching through the JMIR journal (mHealth for wellness, behaviour change and Prevention) and Google scholar was also performed to identify any grey literature otherwise not captured in peer-reviewed databases. As per latest recommendations, the first 200 Google Scholar results were retained and screened. 30
Selection of studies
Studies were collected using Endnote 31 as the reference management software. After filtering for duplicates, the selection process followed 3 stages: initially a broad selection filtered unrelated papers based on their title and key words, next a more in-depth search included reviewing abstracts and finally pre-selected papers were accepted or rejected based on full content. Two authors, GA and AV, completed the process. GA consulted with AV about any ambiguous studies at each step of the selection, and any disagreement regarding relevance of the abstracts was resolved through discussion.
Inclusion criteria
Included studies.
Exclusion criteria
Studies excluded were as follows:
Designed as clinical interventions for already existing conditions: for example, depression, anxiety, obesity, smoke cessation, alcohol, diabetes, cancer, etc. Out of the selected age range. As most studies did not fit precisely with the specified age range (16–24 years old), the mean age was taken as a valid reference, including the standard deviation where reported. Primarily web based instead of app focused: app usage was considered as the main intervention strategy given their potential to work as standalone, mobile tools. Studies that used intensive researcher interaction with participants (e.g. sms and phone calls) over and above the use of apps as their main intervention strategy. Study protocols or design studies with no implementation or results.
Keywords
Handheld computer OR App/s OR Applications OR Mobile OR Cell Phone OR Accelerometer OR Actimetry AND Health AND Behaviour/s OR Physical Activity OR Fitness OR Walk/ing OR Eating OR Diet OR Weight OR Wellbeing OR Wellness OR Sleep OR Food consumption OR Energy AND Expenditure OR Mood OR Emotion
Assessment of methodological quality and data extraction
Included studies were critically appraised using four widely accepted checklists from the Joanna Briggs Institute 34 (Appendix B). The checklists aim to assess the quality of each study's methodology referring to important elements of study designs including randomised, observational (non-randomised) and qualitative studies. These tools include aspects such as the randomisation of participants into groups, methods employed to assess intervention outcomes, the appropriateness of statistical analyses used, the employment of appropriate search strategies and the critical appraisal of studies and methods used to minimise errors in data extraction. Two authors (GA and AV) independently appraised the studies and then compared ratings. When ratings were different, the two authors discussed until agreement was reached. Data extracted included type of study, wellbeing dimension targeted, type of intervention used (e.g. app, others), participants demographics, recruitment strategies and context, retention vs attrition, salient engagement elements, outcomes, and limitations and conclusions.
The emphasis of this review was not the methodological quality of the studies selected, but the characteristics of the users and their engagement with the proposed interventions (apps). The main intention of this assessment was to identify any salient issues that would seriously impact user engagement.
Analysis and synthesis
In the intent of capturing all data of interest, narrative synthesis was chosen as the preferred approach to evidence synthesis. The three steps of narrative synthesis, as outlined by Popay and colleagues, 35 were followed: (a) develop a preliminary synthesis, (b) explore relationships in the data and (c) assess the robustness of the synthesised product. To develop a preliminary synthesis of findings the data were: (a) organised into groups by type of intervention (e.g. randomised control trails [RCTs], qualitative, etc) and wellbeing dimensions targeted (e.g. physical activity, healthy eating, etc) and (b) presented in tabular form. Both techniques were used in the initial stages of analysis to represent the data visually and assist the authors to identify patterns. To explore the relationships between the data, common characteristics within interventions used (e.g. recruitment, trackers, self-reporting, etc.) and participant demographics were explored using conceptual models. Finally, the methodological quality of included studies, the process of the synthesis itself and the information obtained in included studies were used to indicate the robustness of the synthesis. Having said that this review did not focus on intervention outcomes, but on participant characteristics as they related to their engagement in the different studies.
Assessing engagement
To assess engagement with the interventions (apps) specific comments of the original authors addressing, this phenomenon were extracted. We compared engagement specific comments with other indicators such sample characteristics, explicit incentives to participate, recruitment strategies, completion rates and real-life usability as assessed by the authors. These comments are reflected in Table 3 either paraphrased or copied verbatim for fidelity.
Results
General overview of search results and included studies
The initial data base searches yielded a total of 39,039 articles. Following the removal of duplicates, the number dropped to 11,245. The initial review stage focused on scanning articles’ titles and searching for key words as established in the study selection criteria; this process excluded a further 11,017. The subsequent review of 160 abstracts identified 68 suitable studies, and after a full text assessment, 20 studies remained in the final review (refer to Figure 1). Two extra studies were identified in grey literature searches. Endnote 31 was used as the reference management software for this review.

PRISMA flowchart.
Ten studies were identified as RCTs, six were cross-sectional, four were cohort studies, one was qualitative and one quasi experimental. No outstanding methodological issues were identified. Out of the 22 studies selected, four wellbeing areas were identified: healthy eating (one study), 36 physical health (17 studies),37–53 mindfulness (one study) 54 and general wellbeing (three studies)55–57; some studies combined these categories with other areas such as sleep and social activation.39,45,46,48,49,52 The types of studies are shown in Table 2 together with their objectives and conclusions. Consistent with the selection criteria, all the studies analysed used apps for their interventions; six also included wearable trackers.48,52 Eight out of 22 studies used custom designed apps for their interventions,36,38,40,46,50,55–57 while 14 used commercially available apps37,39,41–45,47–49,51–54; this has relevance in the context of understanding engagement as it allows comparing differences between both approaches.
Main characteristics of included studies.
*One author is the Chief Scientist and CEO of Mobio Interactive Inc, but worked only as a technical liaison. He did not contribute to study design methodology. A second author is a scientific advisor and mindfulness guide for Mobio Interactive Inc; this author was involved in all aspects of study design and data analysis, but did not directly contribute to, or have influence over, data collection; nor did he directly perform any of the analyses.
Recruitment
Recruitment methods and their implications are included in Table 3. Data includes recruitment methods, study authors’ comments on recruitment validity and study authors’ comments on the real-life usefulness of the interventions used. These aspects have an impact in the uptake, use and retention of participants and therefore engagement. The majority of studies recruited students in both schools39,40,42,49 and universities38,41,43–46,50–57; only five studies recruited members from the community.36,37,47,48,57 Several studies recruited convenience samples including researchers friends37,41,43,45,55,56 and existing users.37,43,45 Recruitment techniques included online strategies (websites), volunteers, mailing through the electoral role, inviting conscription candidates, flyers and approaching candidates directly.
Recruitment and engagement.
Implications of the recruitment strategies described include various researchers acknowledging that their samples were not representative,36–38,50,53 as well as highlighting other elements impacting the sample such as participants’ mood, 38 tool appropriateness, 39 the specificity of the sample (e.g. gamers),37,43 skewed samples such as psychology students mostly female43,54 and Apple-only users. 54
Participant characteristics
Most studies (18/22) reported higher female participation36–39,41–43,45–47,49,51–57; this is consistent with existing literature. 55 Three studies reported mostly male44,48,50 (one of them focusing solely on males 48 ), and one study did not report on gender. 40 All the studies with mostly male participants were focused on physical health and used gamifying strategies to engage participants. As for age, all studies fit the 16–24 years of age criteria. Studies that covered age ranges beyond the specified age range were considered if their mean age was within the criteria. Participant characteristics can be found in Table 3. Few studies reported on other demographics besides age and gender, and those that did included ethnic background, socio-economic status and education. In all those cases, engagement levels and intervention effects related to those factors were not discussed or reported as nonsignificant. Five studies were completed in Europe (France, 50 Ireland, 53 Finland, 48 Hungary 45 and Italy 51 ), four studies were completed in Australia and New Zealand,36,46,47,55 two in China37,42 and 11 in the United States and Canada.38–41,43,44,49,52,54,56,57
Intervention types and data collection
The majority of interventions (17/22) used physical activity trackers including apps based on movement sensors and wristbands,37–53 seven papers also used gamification techniques and or relied solely on games (e.g. Pokemon Go,37,41,44 zombies run 47 and custom games40,48,50); two apps were designed to increase hope and positive emotion by using tailored messages.36,56 Seven studies relied on self-reports to track data,36,41,42,44,46,55,56 whereas 15 used automatic tracking in-built in the interventions.37–40,43,45,47–54,57
Wellbeing areas targeted by apps
With the Complete State of Mental Health Model 32 as a reference framework, physical wellbeing was the primary area targeted by interventions using wellbeing apps (17 studies). Physical activity and healthy eating constitute discreet, highly measurable categories that have a significant impact on individual wellbeing. 58 The use of pedometers and in-built positioning sensors to track physical activity is more feasible than tracking emotional, psychological or social wellbeing, as these areas are harder to quantify.59,60 In saying that, however, studies such as the one by Leinonen et al. 48 and the one by Demasi et al., 38 targeting physical activity as their main focus did also include social, psychological and emotional variables when discussing both engagement and outcomes. In addition, Tong et al. 46 used socialisation as a strategy to boost engagement with healthy eating apps.
Clear attempts have been made to develop apps to impact emotional, psychological and social wellbeing (e.g. Vella et al. 61 or Carey et al. 55 ). Studies targeting these areas often relied on specific psychological approaches that have a consistent evidence base in clinical settings, for example, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. These approaches are systematic in nature and lend themselves to being codified in apps to be applied remotely. A number of clinical studies support the efficacy of these approaches in mHealth.62,63
Only two studies defined wellbeing in the context of PP.55,56 One study defined wellbeing as an improvement on current deficits. 38 The remaining studies did not define wellbeing as a specific category, focusing instead in discreet behaviours such as physical activity or healthy eating.
Attrition and engagement incentives
Following standard practice 64 studies reporting attrition levels over 20% were considered high. Two studies did not report attrition results, one that had high participant participation 50 and the other being a prototype with only 12 participants 40 ; all cross-sectional studies (n = 6) were based on surveys, and therefore, attrition was not considered.41–45, 55 Different engagement incentives were used to recruit and maintain participants active involvement in the studies analysed. In the context of this review, these incentives can be classified in three types: common practice, context related and app related. Common practice engagement incentives refer to strategies regularly used in research studies, and these include social rewards, small economic incentives and the use of gifts. Four studies offered economic rewards varying from $30 to $90 for participating in interviews.36,47,52,54 Gifts were also utilised with one study giving away fitbits. 39 Social rewards were related to being part of the same social group and to cohorts belonging to the same discreet social context (e.g. schools); this was observed in three studies. Context-related incentives refer to using participation in research as a condition to meet a larger obligation; this was the case of using academic credits and defining research as an assessable component for a particular course.53,56,57 Three studies used strategies like gamification, situational interest, enjoyment, convenience and enhanced awareness.38,46,47 These were highlighted as app-specific features driving engagement. Lastly, three studies recruited participants who were described as existing users.41,42,45
Five studies reported high attrition,38,48,49,56,57 two of them used university students without a clear indication of their motivation to participate,38,49 and one of them used the intervention as part of a university course. 57 One of the studies in this group lasted for six months; it recruited only males in a highly context-specific setting (military call-out cohort in Finland) and despite using high gamification techniques still reported high attrition. 48 Although two studies used extra university credits and worked with volunteers, engagement was still low.38,57
One study reported a mid-range attrition level between 10% and 20%. 36 This study reported predominantly female participants in the older end of the spectrum (M = 24 years of age), lasted 6 months, and paid participants $20 for their contribution. This study focused on healthy eating and used self-report requiring participants to actively communicate with researchers and used self-report.
Nine studies demonstrated high retention with attrition levels of under 10%.37,39,46,47,51–55 Two themes stand out to explain engagement in these studies, the first one being high reward plus short duration, opposite to long studies with little incentive. In this review, examples of high reward/compensation given to participants were: keeping the fitbits 39 ; incentives of $10–$90 per interview (sometimes for multiple interviews)47,52,54; and granting academic credit. 53 Most of these studies were short lasting no more than eight weeks.37,47,53–55 The second theme was seamless intervention and low contact, opposite to intense interaction or overwhelming demands from the apps themselves. All the studies in this category were designed as low interaction interventions; the demand from participants in these studies was minimal. Automatic tracking was the privileged modality to collect data,37,39,47,51–54 only two of these studies also used self-report as part of the intervention.46,55 In the studies using automatic tracking researchers used in-built app features that allowed participants to ‘forget’ about the app, which kept gathering data as long as the mobile was on. This seamless tracking is also part of accelerometer-based pedometers such as the Actigraph GT1M. 47 Studies in this category also used intense gamification techniques and commercial apps: zombies run vs cto5k, 47 Actigraph accelerometer and the accupedo-pro pedometer app. 53
Engagement
According to the studies analysed, participants engagement with apps can be related to identity factors that transcend the apps themselves; these were context specific, socially driven and personalised. Examples of context specific and socially driven elements included participants belonging to a very specific setting (e.g. same social circle) 46 or accessing the study with pre-existing motivation 50 ; some studies in this category recruited participants enrolled in specific courses such as sport science or IT. 38 Social comparison seems to be a driver for engagement, with elements as homophily and existing social ties named as highlights. 46 Elements such as fun and social inclination are pointed as essential engagement elements, 40 at the same time these factors are linked with individual preferences. Similarly usefulness, satisfaction and social connection are important for authors 42 who in turn dismiss the fun factor in favour of participants having a clear personal goal. Other elements such as health perception were seen as mediators to higher goals, as Deranek et al. 39 states: ‘adolescents want to participate in life’ (i.e. keep social connections, avoid stress and revitalisation) and see exercise as a mechanism to stay healthy to achieve this.
Personalised, innovative and contextualised apps had better positive engagement comments than simpler themed apps without a back story (e.g. pedometers). 47 Gamification was used as a privileged strategy and included elements such as: situational interest, enjoyment, convenience and enhanced awareness. These were highlighted by researchers as app-specific features driving engagement. Studies such as those analysing Pokemon Go37,41,44 relied on personal identification elements that surpassed the apps themselves, highlighting personal characteristics and preferences by identifying most users as ‘gamers’ or as having a natural proclivity for these type of interventions. 41 Most participants in these studies had already downloaded the app before the study. However, these studies also showed high uptake initially with a quick loss of interest after the first week, and authors attribute this to the repetitive nature of the game. 37
The possibility of setting personal goals was found to be preferable than having the app set up in a fixed way. 38 It was also noted that participants in these studies were mostly in the younger end of the age spectrum analysed, with most of them being under 20 years of age.
Identity
Almost all studies in this review emphasised the need to consider individual characteristics and preferences to explain and enhance engagement with health apps. This was true with respect to the perception of hope 56 as well as for participants understanding of wellbeing. 55 In this context, personal reflection and self-awareness were considered as a reason for engagement with the intervention, and these are specific individual elements.
Making the user the primary focus, understanding their personal characteristics, instead of the intervention itself was recommended.38,41–44,46,47,49,51,53–55,57 Similarly, motivation understood as an individual factor was recognised as a primary factor for engagement when comparing men and women in a study looking to improve eating behaviours. 36 Consistent with this, situational interest derived from individual motivation 50 was related to enjoyment, exploration and attentional focus. Personal attitudes, norms, motivation, goals and values can be expressed in perceived behavioural control. 51 An example of this is that in the study by Krafft et al. 57 where better outcomes were found in the help-seeking cohort (those that did not get any incentives to participate vs. the incentivised cohort that got academic credit). In a similar way Walsh et al. 53 recognised that personal disposition and reflective awareness are considered as the main drivers for engagement. There seems to be agreement that one-size-fits-all approach is not enough to sustain engagement and that tailoring interventions to the individual could improve meaningful engagement with these interventions.38,41–44,46,47,49,51,53–55,57
Design, usability, functionality and features
Several studies mentioned design and usability factors as mediators for engagement, elements such as aesthetic, comfort and functionality45,48; however, they still linked these factors with personal preferences and perceptions such as wearables being ‘fashionable’. Usability was also related to specific features and behaviour change techniques. Some of these included self-monitoring and goal setting, self-monitoring of behaviour, and feedback on behaviour. Technological limitations are considered to be a barrier for engagement comparison. 46
Discussion
The current systematic review of the literature and narrative synthesis set out to investigate the connection between users’ characteristics and level of engagement in interventions using mobile apps to increase and support wellbeing. It was found that most studies do not reflect on engagement beyond retention for the duration of the intervention, so therefore there was not a clear definition of what engagement is and how it impacted results. Having said that, most studies commented on the enablers and the limitations of their interventions, their uptake and participants’ perceptions. In that context, we analysed all the comments related to engagement and included factors such as recruitment strategies, sample characteristics and authors perception of usefulness of their interventions in real life contexts.
It was found that most studies recruited university students, which is in line with regular university recruitment strategies; although this could be seen as a sampling bias, the context of this study is expected that young people would be mostly students given the age ranges. Recruiting from a very specific context can potentially impact engagement due to affinity, peer pressure or institutional expectations; most studies used convenience samples, often times small and also highly contextualised; only men in the process of conscription, or high concentration of females studying psychology, members of the same class in the same school, existing users of the technologies investigated, IT students testing an app 38 ; members of the same social group/class 46 ; or pre-existing users. 45 While most studies reported demographic characteristics in varying levels of detail, they did not comment in a meaningful way regarding engagement results to any of these demographic indicators.
A clear example of using identity elements to engage participants is ‘Pokemon Go’. The ‘Pokemon Go’ 65 phenomenon started in 2016 and exploded throughout the world with thousands of people downloading and playing the most successful ‘exergame’ to date. 66 Our review analysed three studies focusing on ‘Pokemon Go’.37,41,44 Researchers in these three studies highlight the personal characteristics of participants: ‘gamers’ and existing users, indicating that users of this app are intrinsically motivated. There is agreement that ‘Pokemon Go’ has significantly increased physical activity for players. Undoubtedly this had many positive effects including improvement in physical and mental health, socialisation and emotional wellbeing 67 even though the effect has proved to be of short duration, as studies report decrease of activity after five to six weeks of using the game. 68 However, by using identity strategies ‘Pokemon Go’ speaks to a generation in the same way ‘Star Wars’ or ‘Harry Potter’ would, it appeals to nostalgia, creates a sub-culture and boosts sense of belonging. As Howe et al. 68 report, the uptake of ‘Pokemon Go’ went beyond ‘sex, age, race group, bodyweight status, urbanity, or walkability of the area of residence’, effectively engaging participants at a higher level of identification. This game is also a great example on using personalisation features, using different challenges, difficulty levels and sense of achievement; all of this on top of using enhanced reality to integrate the game with the participants’ own environment. Persuasive design elements were also mentioned by some studies, usability and functionality are at the top of the list; however, elements such as aesthetic and being ‘fashionable’ still play an important role in users’ adoption and reflect personal preferences based on identity.
In the context of app development, establishing the identity elements that would attract participants to engage with the concept that needs to be communicated (i.e. wellbeing) is suggested to be more important than the actual technical design.
Most studies in this review focused on the interventions as the first step of the process instead of starting with the individuals and their needs; this points to the need of implementing design strategies based on participatory research methodologies to allow users to be involved in the process from its inception. 28 Having said that, it is not clear if successful apps such as ‘Pokemon Go’ do use these design methodologies. In any case, the findings of this review point to the fact that real engagement does not happen unless participants have a personal intrinsic motivation; this is usually either due to the need to satisfy a deficit as it happens in clinical studies or due to having a vested interest such as ‘having to do it’ to satisfy a larger need (e.g. a study course). Several studies in this research hint to the need to consider the individual and their particular characteristics as the starting point to plan and design wellbeing interventions.
Various researchers in the studies analysed in this synthesis noted how elements such as failing to address individual preferences can affect perceived autonomy and personal interest when engaging with wellbeing apps. 49 Similarly, some mentioned how merely using a wellbeing app without having a personal motivation and self-awareness of the importance of a healthy lifestyle hinders any expected positive outcomes. 51 Boosting personal preferences when designing wellbeing interventions can increase their effect. 40 Games can approach audiences using different identification elements that become more or less accepted in the degree in which users identify with them. 69 These same principles could be applied to the design of mobile apps that although being broader in their approach still hold some features that can be personalised and sequentialised almost in a gamified way.
The current study highlights the need to properly understand who the audience is before implementing features or behaviour change interventions in app design. The directionality of research in mHealth should emphasise the individual not only as the intervention recipient, but primarily as its originator. This review suggested that apps relying on clear identity driven elements are more likely to produce high levels of engagement and arguably therefore to be more effective at their intended goals, in turn highlighting the need for and importance of effective participatory research strategies in the design mHealth interventions.
Finally, the paucity on understanding the concept of wellbeing is telling with regards to developing effective interventions, and it is clear that most research is still focused on a deficit driven rather than strength-based approach. At the same time, this constitutes an opportunity for new developments aimed at creating positive mental health, boosting wellbeing at population levels and educating young people on the importance of maintaining and creating a culture that seeks flourishing as an ideal and not only the absence of illness.
Limitations and strengths
The aim of this review was to start a reflective process with regards to delimiting an area of research: engagement with wellbeing interventions in the context of mHealth, and propose themes for design and focus of interventions for future research. As knowledge in this area is constantly changing at an ever-increasing speed, together with the difficulty in conceptualising wellbeing in the context of mHealth, this may have caused some key articles to be missed. However, every effort was made to identify all possible articles, including a review of grey literature. Often studies focused on reporting primary outcomes and overlooked the leading factors in the research process; therefore, the lack of consistency in articles reporting high-quality data is recognised as a limitation, for example, demographics (including gender diversity), attrition rates and particularly engagement. In that context, the lack of a clear definition for engagement derived from the literature clearly impacts any efforts to investigate this using this type of review. That said, a strength of this review was capturing data within a broad scope, not limiting itself to just one aspect of wellbeing or one type of intervention. Accordingly, this approach contributes by finding common grounds of interaction for research designed with different variables in the context of wellbeing theory. We consider focusing on wellbeing and not in deficit driven clinical interventions as a strength; although wellbeing and PP interventions are used and researched consistently, effectively translating their techniques and content in mHealth interventions is still a challenge and a new direction with clear benefits for the future.
Conclusions
Young people are characterised by peak performance in health and intellectual capacity as well as forming strong social networks, identity and productivity. Wellbeing apps targeting young people have the potential to make a targeted and sustained difference at a critical stage of life and are rapidly becoming the privileged way to achieve this. The current results suggest that effective engagement with wellbeing apps happens when their design and content include identity elements that transcend the apps themselves and allow users to access personal customisation, in line with their sense of achievement, challenges, motivation, mood, values and rewards. Understanding who young people are, what are their motivations, how they look at themselves and how they codify their world appears to be the key to effectively shape and apply engagement strategies with long-term impact. However, having and communicating a shared understanding of wellbeing and involving all actors in the creation of this and associated apps to promote wellbeing remain a challenge.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-dhj-10.1177_20552076221144104 - Supplemental material for Understanding what we know so far about young people's engagement with wellbeing apps. A scoping review and narrative synthesis
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-dhj-10.1177_20552076221144104 for Understanding what we know so far about young people's engagement with wellbeing apps. A scoping review and narrative synthesis by Gaston Antezana, Anthony Venning, David Smith and Niranjan Bidargaddi in Digital Health
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-2-dhj-10.1177_20552076221144104 - Supplemental material for Understanding what we know so far about young people's engagement with wellbeing apps. A scoping review and narrative synthesis
Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-dhj-10.1177_20552076221144104 for Understanding what we know so far about young people's engagement with wellbeing apps. A scoping review and narrative synthesis by Gaston Antezana, Anthony Venning, David Smith and Niranjan Bidargaddi in Digital Health
Footnotes
Acknowledgement
We would like to acknowledge R Damarrell for her contribution as expert librarian in assisting with the database searches.
Author contribution
GA conducted the review including research analysis, synthesis and write-up of the final document. AV contributed to the review, interpretation, write-up and final revision of the project. NB and DS contributed to analysis, write-up and interpretation of results, as well as final revision. All authors were involved in the development of the idea and research rationale.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Guarantor
GA.
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
