ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
User perceptions of individually-tailored health information in digital apps: development of a scale.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Individually tailored health information is thought to have greater effects on patient behavior than generic advice because it is more personally relevant. Most digital health studies, however, do not actually measure the effect of tailoring on study outcomes. To address this gap, we created the Success in Tailoring (SIT) scale which assesses how users perceive information as relevant, useful, and actionable. Methods: The SIT items were chosen to reflect theoretical work on relevance and elements of the Elaboration Likelihood Model. It was administered to participants in a study of a mobile app providing tailored information about chronic disease self-management to persons 40 years of age and older with low health literacy. Participants responded immediately after completing the study intervention and again three months later. Psychometric analyses focused on the measure's reliability, factor structure, and convergent and divergent validity other measures thought to be related and unrelated to it. We assessed test-retest reliability and factorial invariance over administration, and whether the measure predicted changes in key study outcomes. Results: Analyses were based on responses from 275 participants. The SIT's internal consistency was good, and test-retest reliability was acceptable. Exploratory factor analysis suggested a single-factor solution, although subsequent confirmatory analyses revealed that a bifactor solution with a robust general factor and two minor subfactors fit the data best. The scale was significantly correlated with measures related to its underlying concept and unrelated to measures not related to it, such as physical and cognitive status. Configural and metric, but not scalar, factorial invariance, were confirmed. SIT scores were related to change in activation and disease-management self-efficacy over the course of the study. Confirmatory bifactor analyses supported treating the SIT as essentially unidimensional, with a single total score providing a reliable and valid index of perceived tailoring. Conclusion: The SIT gives researchers a straightforward means of capturing whether participants feel information is successfully tailored to them. It may be helpful in explaining how personalization, a key feature of many digital health apps, may be related to outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.