Journal of medical Internet research · 2024
User Engagement With mHealth Interventions to Promote Treatment Adherence and Self-Management in People With Chronic Health Conditions: Systematic Review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Eaton Cyd, Vallejo Natalie, McDonald Xiomara, Wu Jasmine, Rodríguez Rosa, Muthusamy Nishanth, Mathioudakis Nestoras, Riekert Kristin A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There are numerous mobile health (mHealth) interventions for treatment adherence and self-management; yet, little is known about user engagement or interaction with these technologies.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to answer the following questions: (1) How is user engagement defined and measured in studies of mHealth interventions to promote adherence to prescribed medical or health regimens or self-management among people living with a health condition? (2) To what degree are patients engaging with these mHealth interventions? (3) What is the association between user engagement with mHealth interventions and adherence or self-management outcomes? (4) How often is user engagement a research end point?
METHODS: Scientific database (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) search results (2016-2021) were screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted in a standardized electronic form. No risk-of-bias assessment was conducted because this review aimed to characterize user engagement measurement rather than certainty in primary study results. The results were synthesized descriptively and thematically.
RESULTS: A total of 292 studies were included for data extraction. The median number of participants per study was 77 (IQR 34-164). Most of the mHealth interventions were evaluated in nonrandomized studies (157/292, 53.8%), involved people with diabetes (51/292, 17.5%), targeted medication adherence (98/292, 33.6%), and comprised apps (220/292, 75.3%). The principal findings were as follows: (1) >60 unique terms were used to define user engagement; "use" (102/292, 34.9%) and "engagement" (94/292, 32.2%) were the most common; (2) a total of 11 distinct user engagement measurement approaches were identified; the use of objective user log-in data from an app or web portal (160/292, 54.8%) was the most common; (3) although engagement was inconsistently evaluated, most of the studies (99/195, 50.8%) reported >1 level of engagement due to the use of multiple measurement methods or analyses, decreased engagement across time (76/99, 77%), and results and conclusions suggesting that higher engagement was associated with positive adherence or self-management (60/103, 58.3%); and (4) user engagement was a research end point in only 19.2% (56/292) of the studies.
CONCLUSIONS: The results revealed major limitations in the literature reviewed, including significant variability in how user engagement is defined, a tendency to rely on user log-in data over other measurements, and critical gaps in how user engagement is evaluated (infrequently evaluated over time or in relation to adherence or self-management outcomes and rarely considered a research end point). Recommendations are outlined in response to our findings with the goal of improving research rigor in this area.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022289693; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022289693.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to answer the following questions: (1) How is user engagement defined and measured in studies of mHealth interventions to promote adherence to prescribed medical or health regimens or self-management among people living with a health condition? (2) To what degree are patients engaging with these mHealth interventions? (3) What is the association between user engagement with mHealth interventions and adherence or self-management outcomes? (4) How often is user engagement a research end point?
METHODS: Scientific database (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) search results (2016-2021) were screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted in a standardized electronic form. No risk-of-bias assessment was conducted because this review aimed to characterize user engagement measurement rather than certainty in primary study results. The results were synthesized descriptively and thematically.
RESULTS: A total of 292 studies were included for data extraction. The median number of participants per study was 77 (IQR 34-164). Most of the mHealth interventions were evaluated in nonrandomized studies (157/292, 53.8%), involved people with diabetes (51/292, 17.5%), targeted medication adherence (98/292, 33.6%), and comprised apps (220/292, 75.3%). The principal findings were as follows: (1) >60 unique terms were used to define user engagement; "use" (102/292, 34.9%) and "engagement" (94/292, 32.2%) were the most common; (2) a total of 11 distinct user engagement measurement approaches were identified; the use of objective user log-in data from an app or web portal (160/292, 54.8%) was the most common; (3) although engagement was inconsistently evaluated, most of the studies (99/195, 50.8%) reported >1 level of engagement due to the use of multiple measurement methods or analyses, decreased engagement across time (76/99, 77%), and results and conclusions suggesting that higher engagement was associated with positive adherence or self-management (60/103, 58.3%); and (4) user engagement was a research end point in only 19.2% (56/292) of the studies.
CONCLUSIONS: The results revealed major limitations in the literature reviewed, including significant variability in how user engagement is defined, a tendency to rely on user log-in data over other measurements, and critical gaps in how user engagement is evaluated (infrequently evaluated over time or in relation to adherence or self-management outcomes and rarely considered a research end point). Recommendations are outlined in response to our findings with the goal of improving research rigor in this area.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022289693; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022289693.