Table 2.
Responses generated by the expert group on engagement strategies.a
| Responses | Agreement ratingb | Ranking scorec | |||
| Mean (SD) | Mode | Agree:Disagreed | Mean (SD) | Mode | |
| Ease of use | 4.9 (.38) | 5 | 7:0 | 1.4 (.79) | 1 |
| Design – aesthetic | 4.6 (.54) | 5 | 7:0 | 3.1 (1.57) | 2, 5 |
| Feedback | 4.6 (.54) | 5 | 7:0 | 3.9 (1.68) | 4 |
| Function | 4.0 (.82) | 4 | 5:2 | 6.6 (3.60) | 11 |
| Design – ability to change design to suit own preferences | 3.6 (.79) | 4 | 5:2 | 6.9 (4.74) | 3 |
| Tailored information | 4.3 (.76) | 4, 5 | 6:1 | 7.9 (3.39) | 6, 7 |
| Unique smartphone features | 4.4 (.54) | 4 | 7:0 | 7.9 (5.79) | 6 |
| Prompts | 4.1 (.38) | 4 | 7:0 | 8.4 (2.44) | 8 |
| Graded tasks | 4.0 (.82) | 4 | 5:2 | 8.7 (3.50) | 12 |
| Gamification | 4.1 (.69) | 4 | 6:1 | 8.9 (5.30) | 10 |
| Social comparison | 3.9 (.69) | 4 | 5:2 | 10.4 (3.36) | 9 |
| Reward type Novelty | 4.0 (.82) | 4 | 5:2 | 11.6 (2.23) | 12 |
| Reward type Games | 3.7 (.49) | 4 | 5:2 | 11.9 (2.97) | 11, 15 |
| Reward type Positive messages | 4.0 (.58) | 4 | 6:1 | 12.1 (2.79) | 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 |
| Reward type Financial | 3.6 (.98) | 4 | 4:3 | 12.3 (1.98) | 13 |
| Social connectivity | 4.0 (.58) | 4 | 6:1 | 14.1 (1.95) | 15, 16 |
| Reward type- cue signaling rewarde | 3.4 (.98) | 3 | 3:4 | - | |
aResponses ordered in terms of mean ranking score (from round 3).
bAgreement rating (1: strongly disagree, 5: strongly agree).
cRanking score (1: highest, 16: lowest).
dAgree:Disagree (ratio of (agree/strongly agree): (neither/disagree/strongly disagree) used as inclusion criteria for round 3.
eThis response was not included in round 3 because there was not substantive agreement that it would be an effective engagement strategy in round 2 (defined as a minimum of 4 out of 7 of the participants agreeing (i.e., rating of 4 or above) that the technique was likely to be engaging).