Lessons Learned From Multidomain mHealth Development Practice in Application of Lifestyle Management

While multidomain lifestyle mHealth interventions offer great promise for public health, their impact is often limited in the development process. Current research frequently overlooks micro-level design elements, leaving developers with few evidence-based lessons to draw from past experiences.

Background

Smartphone ownership and internet access are increasing. Together, these trends give mHealth interventions strong public health potential. mHealth has also evolved over time. It has shifted from tools mainly supporting clinical services to broader applications [1, 2]. These include disease prevention, health promotion, diagnosis, treatment, and long-term monitoring. A growing body of evidence shows that mHealth can be effective in chronic disease management and lifestyle behavior change. It may also be cost-effective [3, 4]. However, as mHealth interventions expand toward multidomain lifestyle management, multiple barriers have emerged. Poor usability, changing user needs, unsatisfactory user experience, technical failures, and concerns about privacy and security often lead users to abandon apps after a short period.

Therefore, for mHealth to generate sustainable health impact, success depends largely on whether effective engagement strategies are embedded at the design level. Although frameworks such as IDEAS and MRC provide macro-level development guidance, they often lack operational detail regarding the “how-to” of feature implementation. Specifically, there is a shortage of evidence-based guidance on how to select and integrate micro-level design elements that are essential for managing multiple lifestyle domains simultaneously, such as specific behavior change techniques and user interface triggers [2]. This leads to a more specific question: when developing multidomain mHealth interventions for lifestyle management, which key factors and challenges should developers prioritize?

Lessons From Practice

Drawing on their direct involvement in two smartphone-based lifestyle intervention projects, Weber et.al. (2025) summarized key considerations for developing multidomain lifestyle mHealth interventions [2]. The two projects were DELIA, a digital lifestyle intervention for community-dwelling adults aged 65 and above, and QUALUCA, a digital lifestyle intervention for survivors of non-small cell lung cancer after rehabilitation.

Based on their development experience, the authors grouped common challenges into four areas. They also proposed practical strategies for each. First, developers should clearly identify differences in preferences and needs across target populations. Personalization mechanisms and content delivery should be designed accordingly. Second, user engagement and testing pathways should be carefully planned. Early and continuous usability and experience testing can improve product fit. Third, human support should be deliberately designed and allocated. This can enhance engagement and intervention effectiveness, while still considering scalability. Fourth, at the organizational and governance level of multidomain interventions, teams must manage interdisciplinary collaboration, necessary trade-offs, and adaptive adjustments. Core teams and resource investment must be ensured.

Overall, the authors emphasize that successful multidomain mHealth implementation depends on delivering the right content, to the right person, at the right time. This must be balanced with the use of frameworks and guidelines, regulatory compliance, resource allocation, and a core team capable of interdisciplinary collaboration and continuous iteration.

Implications

For practice, this study offers actionable insights for developers and researchers.

First, before designing any feature, teams should define the target user profile and use context [5, 6]. They should systematically assess users’ digital and health literacy, language preferences, daily routines, and sensitivity to privacy. These assessments should guide decisions about content presentation and interaction complexity.

Second, personalization should not be limited to surface-level content recommendations [7, 8]. It should be built as a sustainable system capability. This can include tiered or parallel intervention pathways, feedback-based dynamic adjustments, and user-configurable options such as reminder frequency or font size. These features allow different users to achieve suitable experiences within the same product.

Third, a tiered support strategy should be established. Most common issues should be addressed with scalable solutions. Limited human support resources should be reserved for critical moments and high-risk users [2]. This approach balances engagement, effectiveness, and scalability.

Finally, interdisciplinary collaboration is not optional. It is a foundational condition for successful multidomain interventions [2]. Time and budget should explicitly account for it. Shared language and shared goals should be established. A core team capable of responding quickly to uncertainty is essential for sustained iteration and implementation.

Figure. Key Considerations in the Development of mHealth Interventions

References

[1] Ali EE, Chew L, Yap KY-L. Evolution and current status of mhealth research: a systematic review.BMJ Innov 2016; 2(1): 33–40
[https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2015-000096]

[2] Weber M, Mattli R, Raab AM*, et al.*What to Consider When Developing Multidomain Mobile Health Interventions for Lifestyle Management. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2025; 13: e63573
[https://doi.org/10.2196/63573][PMID: 40854233]

[3] Carrandi A, Hu Y, KargerS*, et al.*Systematic review on the cost and cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions supporting women during pregnancy. Women Birth 2023; 36(1): 3–10
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2022.03.007][PMID: 35339412]

[4] Rinaldi G, Hijazi A, Haghparast-Bidgoli H. Cost and cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions for the prevention and control of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2020; 162: 108084
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108084][PMID: 32061819]

[5] Xie Z, Or CK. Consumers’ Preferences for Purchasing mHealth Apps: Discrete Choice Experiment. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2023; 11: e25908
[https://doi.org/10.2196/25908][PMID: 37707310]

[6] Giebel GD, Abels C, PlescherF*, et al.*Problems and Barriers Related to the Use of mHealth Apps From the Perspective of Patients: Focus Group and Interview Study. J Med Internet Res 2024; 26: e49982
[https://doi.org/10.2196/49982][PMID: 38652508]

[7] Rivera-Romero O, Gabarron E, Ropero J, Denecke K. Designing personalised mHealth solutions: An overview. J Biomed Inform 2023; 146: 104500
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2023.104500][PMID: 37722446] [8] Jakob R, Harperink S, Rudolf AM*, et al.*Factors Influencing Adherence to mHealth Apps for Prevention or Management of Noncommunicable Diseases: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res 2022; 24(5): e35371
[https://doi.org/10.2196/35371][PMID: 35612886