A curious paradox has emerged in the world of digital wellness: the people most likely to stick with well-being apps are already doing pretty well in life, while those struggling with challenges often abandon the technology designed to help them.
A new study from the University of Eastern Finland tracked 1,646 adults who were offered access to BitHabit, a lifestyle improvement app, for two months in spring 2023. The researchers discovered something that might make app developers uncomfortable. While individuals experiencing more daily struggles were indeed more likely to download and try the wellness app initially, they were also the most likely to stop using it.
The Three Digital Tribes
The research team, led by Project Researcher Hanna Rekola, identified three distinct user personalities that emerged from the data. There were the “thriving nonactive users” who downloaded the app but didn’t really engage with it, the “struggling nonactive users” who also failed to maintain interest, and the “active users” who kept coming back.
The active users turned out to be the most satisfied with their lives from the beginning. They were typically older adults who already had decent lifestyle habits and reported fewer daily challenges. Meanwhile, younger people, men, and unemployed individuals were significantly less likely to even start using the app.
“There is little research into how users’ background characteristics, life situation and well-being affect their likelihood to adopt and actively use well-being promoting apps during the early stages of lifestyle interventions.”
This finding presents a troubling chicken-and-egg scenario for digital health interventions. The technology seems to work best for people who need it least, while those who might benefit most from guided lifestyle changes find themselves left behind by the very tools designed to help them.
When Good Intentions Meet Real Life
The BitHabit app was designed to promote healthy lifestyle choices through everyday guidance and motivation. Of the 1,646 survey respondents, 863 actually started using the app. But the demographics of who stuck around tell a story that goes beyond simple user preferences.
Men were 34% less likely to initiate app use compared to women. The unemployed showed 32% lower odds of starting, despite potentially having more time available. Perhaps most revealing, people reporting higher life satisfaction were actually less likely to begin using the app in the first place, yet more likely to remain engaged if they did start.
The researchers used statistical clustering to analyze usage patterns and found that various socioeconomic factors influenced which user archetype someone fell into. Retired participants had four times higher odds of being struggling nonactive users, while those who were already physically active were more likely to be thriving nonactive users.
Alcohol consumption patterns also played a role, with higher-consuming participants showing more than three times the odds of becoming struggling nonactive users rather than active ones.
“Further research is needed to ensure that digital well-being apps appeal to a broader user base and better meet the needs of individuals with less favourable lifestyle habits and poorer mental health.”
The implications extend beyond academic curiosity. As digital health interventions become more common and sometimes replace traditional support systems, understanding who gets left behind becomes crucial for public health planning.
The study employed logistic regression analysis and k-means clustering to identify patterns, providing a methodologically robust look at early-stage digital intervention adoption. The research was conducted as part of the PREWELL project and the Feeling Good North Savo programme, both funded by major European research initiatives.
The findings suggest that while wellness apps might serve as useful supplements for people already on solid ground, they may require fundamental redesigns to effectively reach and retain users who are genuinely struggling. The digital wellness revolution, it seems, still has some users to win over.
Journal of Medical Internet Research: 10.2196/68982
ScienceBlog.com has no paywalls, no sponsored content, and no agenda beyond getting the science right. Every story here is written to inform, not to impress an advertiser or push a point of view.
Good science journalism takes time — reading the papers, checking the claims, finding researchers who can put findings in context. We do that work because we think it matters.
If you find this site useful, consider supporting it with a donation. Even a few dollars a month helps keep the coverage independent and free for everyone.