dr. gary bennett

digital health wonk and [coffee] geek

A few weeks back I had the pleasure of joining colleagues Dr. Krishna Udayakumar, Dr. Ricky Bloomfield, and Dr. Bernard Fuemmeler on a panel discussing, Should there be an app for that?

Mid-rant that day, I found a tune floating (Ally McBeal-style) through my mind. Although I [uncharacteristically] repressed it then, I can do so no longer. Here goes:

“It’s hard out here for an app.”

Look, I am utterly bullish on the digital health market in general and apps specifically. But you can’t market enthusiasm [unless you’re Lil’ Jon]. And it’s the marketing of mHealth apps that presents some challenges to developers, particularly we academic ones.

The challenge? I call it The Rule of 70%.
TL; DR: People don’t download new apps, and when they do, they don’t use, and when they use, it’s not for long.

1. Most users don’t download new apps. Nearly 70% of users don’t download any apps in an average month. As a recent Quartz piece noted, “The top 7% of smartphone owners account for ‘nearly half of all download activity in a given month…'”


2. When they download new apps, most don’t use them very often. Nearly 70% use a new app 10 or fewer times; more than a quarter only open an app once.


3. When they do use an app, they don’t do it for long. Nearly 70% of time spent in the top 3 apps (and the biggest time leeching app is [“duh”-alert] Facebook).


There is your challenge. So what’s left for those of us who are slogging away in those under-loved categories, like health/fitness (and weather for that matter)?


Here are a few thoughts:

Consider whether you need an app. We’re careful about building apps because in some cases, you can achieve broader reach and engagement using other digital health approaches (e.g., text messaging, interactive voice response, mobile web, email). These approaches can also be developed more rapidly and less expensively than [well designed] apps. Digital health often depends on engagement to produce optimal outcomes and non-app digital health approaches perform better than most apps great.

Make it stick, because people stop using apps pretty quickly. We’ve had a lot of success with this in research settings — our last study had 76% retention at 1-year. But many commercial apps struggle with stickiness. Digital health apps have a head start, as people are less likely to stop using relative to other categories (e.g. games). But if your app is opened only once in the first week, you have a 60% chance that they’ll stop using.. (BTW — wondering about our secret sauce? Ask for regular interaction and then use behavior change theory to figure out what feedback to provide).

Find a new distribution model. If you’re marketing to consumers, it’s unlikely that you’ll get many downloads, particularly after your initial launch. I know you have the next Facebook, but it’s unlikely that anyone outside of The Valley or The City will find you. This piece from Unread developer, Jared Sinclair recent went viral because it offered a rare glimpse inside the books of an independent app developer. And the view isn’t pretty:

Half of the lifetime sales of Unread were generated in the first five days. It would take another 170 days (24 weeks) to generate that same amount again… I conclude from all this that anyone who wants to make a satisfying living as an independent app developer should seriously consider only building apps based on sustainable revenue models.

This is a challenge in today’s digital health, because many users are young and [snacks, soda, and ETOH aside] pretty healthy. However, we need business models that target niche conditions and varying market segments (health systems, EHR vendors, HRA vendors, providers, consumer products companies, pharma). Researchers — you can’t ignore this one. If you’re deciding between making a standalone app, or one that connects with an EHR decision support tool, the latter will be a better dissemination bet.

We conduct digital health research trials almost exclusively in community health centers. These primary care settings are described as part of the nation’s “safety net,” but let’s be clear: for most of these patients, there is no catcher on the trapeze. Health centers are the primary, primary care option for our nation’s poor. Without them, we’d be certain to see [even more] rampant rates of suffering, poverty, and health care costs.

Health center docs are some of the most amazing physicians you’ll ever encounter. While I’m somewhat prone to hyperbole, I’m probably understating this particular point. Need evidence? This episode from David Plotz’s wonderful new podcast series aptly captures the amazing gifts that health center physicians provide to their patients [and our nation].

Interesting piece in Slate today about the demise of the mobile app.

… apps are very clearly not going to be around forever. Certainly not in their current, bulky square form. There isn’t enough mobile homepage real estate for each of the web’s 500-million-plus active websites to have its own app…

(The comments section — this time — is worth checking out)

This may seem like an extreme [read: click baiting] position, but the author has a point. With change in hardware configs (big phones with big screens, watches with small ones), we’re likely to see evolution in app interface designs as well.

My prediction? Hate to say it, but I think iOS 8’s “new” widget functionality portends where we might be going. I suspect apps will live in the background and/or cloud, with minimal interfaces, push notifications that are triggered by inputs, context, and biology, with as-needed full “screen” experiences.

The days of icons arrayed in rows and columns will be over sooner than we might expect.

In this week’s addition of Another Day, Another Wearable, we present the latest offering from Pivotal Living.


Wrist-worn? Check.
UI? Check.
Bluetooth? Check.
Hypoallergenic? Hopefully.
Price? Free (with a $12 annual subscription to their premium app … so that’s more like free-ish).

I’ve long been predicting that we’re going to see wearables (at least the non Apple variety) rapidly enter Commodity Land. It’s becoming more difficult to differentiate on features (although FitBit is trying), it’s hard to justify high prices for cheap innards, and all the action is in the software anyway. Now, for the dreaded self-quote:

I predict that we’ll see these things [on discount] lining the shelves at your local drugstore. Just like paper towels. — Me

Whoops, wrong quote. Try this one.

Commoditization … will redirect the market’s focus where it should be: on the software. After all, the challenge isn’t the [data] collecting, it’s the changing. Tracker makers have done an excellent job in developing cool tools for gathering data, but they’ve been much less creative in designing software that reliably improves people’s health. And it’s the software that offers tracker makers the greatest opportunity for differentiation. — Me

I haven’t yet used the Pivotal Living app and on first glance, I don’t see much that isn’t available in other apps. And remember, we don’t know if any of these apps or devices actually work. But, what’s important is that we’re beginning to see new business models for wearables that prize (and price) the software. If this business model catches on, I suspect that developers will need ways to better differentiate their apps. This might create opportunities for those of us who’ve been clamoring to get evidence-based approaches into the app market. Admittedly, that’s a lot of ifs, but I’m willing to play the long game because I’m convinced that focusing on the changing (vs. the collecting) will give us the best shot at using wearables to improve consumer health.

I’ve long been interested in Steve Jobs’ approach to design. True, I’m a bit of an Apple fan-person, but my appreciation for the Apple Way runs deeper than that. I constantly struggle with my approach to developing digital health technologies. Is it theoretically-grounded, using evidence-based approaches, technically sound, adopting optimal user experience practices, gathering the right amount of patient feedback and so on.

Jobs’ approach was different. He knew what he liked and he thought we should (vs would) too. And he was right.

I knew that Jobs’ liked pretty things, but I hadn’t tied it to his love of the humanities. This Brian Lehrer interview of Walter Isaacson is a must listen. They cover a range of topics but most interesting is Isaacson’s argument that Jobs’ love of the humanities pushed him to create mashups of great technology and humanistic design principles.

It’s a good reminder for all of us who do this work.

One of the key challenges in a new-ish area like digital health is not being too innovative when pitching new ideas. This piece from Derek Thompson does a great job of explaining the challenge:

Knowledge doesn’t just turn us into critical thinkers. It maybe turns us into over-critical thinkers.

That’s absolutely been my experience —  in NIH study section meetings, product pitches, and brainstorming sessions.

Thompson’s solution? Portion control.

Most people really don’t like new ideas that sound entirely new, particularly the experts that often have to approve them. The trick is learning to frame new ideas as old ideas—to make your creativity seem, well, not quite so creative.

It’s that time of year again. I’m a faculty member in the clinical psychology program at Duke. During application season, I get lots of questions about whether I’m taking a graduate student, as well as who (and what) I’m looking for.

Back when I applied to graduate programs in clinical psychology, I had an entire kitchen table full of brochures, letters, and file folders for each university. We didn’t apply electronically, so I had an assembly line with stacks of printed personal statements, letters of recommendation in sealed envelopes, and special sections for schools — like Duke at the time — that required extra stuff.

Some things change, some things stay the same. Then, as now, I remember wondering whether individual faculty would be taking students in my application year. I really appreciated those faculty who were transparent about their plans, so I aim to do the same. Therefore:

tl;dr: Yes, we are [probably] taking a student next year.

Now, a few pieces of totally presumptuous advice:

As most of you know, clinical psychology programs that adopt the scientist-practitioner model operate along a continuum from clinical-heavy to research-heavy emphasis. Duke’s clinical program resides at the research-heavy end of the continuum. Duke offers absolutely splendid clinical training. We have outstanding clinical supervisors and a diverse set of training settings. Our alums become very strong clinicians. But we remain a research-heavy graduate program. If you are primarily interested in becoming a clinician or are not sure about your research interests, then I would strongly consider whether a research-heavy program is right for you. My opinion: they’re probably not.

Next, when it comes to evaluating potential research mentors, fit should be your primary consideration. I cannot emphasize this enough. For better or worse, many graduate programs still use an apprentice training model. This means that you will spend at least the next four years working very closely with a research mentor to develop the skills necessary to pursue an independent research career.

Here is a universal truth about graduate study:

If the fit with your mentor stinks, your graduate experience will too. -Me

Look, we know that there are lots of good reasons to pursue graduate studies at Duke. We are one of the best research institutions in the country. We have the country’s most beautiful campus. We have the best men’s and women’s basketball teams in the nation. Our faculty actually play basketball. We have will soon have the best football team in the country. We have the best food and food trucks in the country. We have the best dance festival in the country. We have the prettiest gardens and forests in the country. We have the best weather in the country. We have the best chapel in the country. We have the most spirited undergrads in the country. Did I mention that I am an alumnus? Duke is an amazing place, but if the fit with your research mentor stinks, very little of this will matter.

In that spirit, here’s what I’m looking for. First, know that my team designs, tests, and disseminates interventions for obesity treatment in high risk populations. This means a few things:

  • We’re looking for those who want to learn how to develop interventions. We’re less of a fit if you’re interested in the causes or psychological consequences of obesity.
  • We work in real-world settings with high risk populations; for obesity this means socioeconomically disadvantaged and racial/ethnic minority groups. We’re less in determining what works for obesity treatment in highly motivated populations. We work in busy primary care settings, often far from campus.
  • We use digital health approaches. We don’t use paper, pencils, workbooks, food models, or in-person individual or group treatments.
  • Although psychology is an individual discipline, our research program is heavily invested in population health. Thus, I’m looking for those with strong interests, training, or work experience in public/global health.
  • We work on the public health challenge of adult obesity. We don’t work in eating disorders (although Duke has great faculty in this space). We’re getting more interested in work with kids, but will probably start with families.
  • Finally, when evaluating a graduate application, I’m looking for those who have demonstrated an ability to think big, articulate focused research questions, work independently, execute in the field, meet deadlines, work well with colleagues, and communicate effectively – all while knowing how to have fun.

Good luck and Go Duke!