Paper detail

User-Centric Requirements Prioritization in mHealth Applications: Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment

Mobile health (mHealth) applications are widely used for chronic disease management, but usability and accessibility challenges persist due to the diverse needs of users. Adaptive User Interfaces (AUIs) offer a personalized solution to enhance user experience, yet barriers to adoption remain. Understanding user preferences and trade-offs is essential to ensure widespread acceptance of adaptation designs. This study identifies key factors influencing user preferences and trade-offs in mHealth adaptation design. A Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) was conducted with 186 participants who have chronic diseases and use mHealth applications. Participants were asked to select preferred adaptation designs from choices featuring six attributes with varying levels. A mixed logit model was used to analyze preference heterogeneity and determine the factors most likely influencing adoption. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed to explore differences by age, gender, health conditions, and coping mechanisms. Maintaining usability while ensuring controllability over adaptations, infrequent adaptations, and small-scale changes are key factors that facilitate the adoption of adaptive mHealth app designs. In contrast, frequently used functions and caregiver involvement can diminish the perceived value of such adaptations. This study employs a data-driven approach to quantify user preferences, identify key trade-offs, and reveal variations across demographic and behavioral subgroups through preference heterogeneity modeling. Furthermore, our results offer valuable guidance for developing future adaptive mHealth applications and lay the groundwork for continued exploration into requirements prioritization within the field of software engineering.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.