39
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Measuring Engagement in eHealth and mHealth Behavior Change Interventions: Viewpoint of Methodologies

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Engagement in electronic health (eHealth) and mobile health (mHealth) behavior change interventions is thought to be important for intervention effectiveness, though what constitutes engagement and how it enhances efficacy has been somewhat unclear in the literature. Recently published detailed definitions and conceptual models of engagement have helped to build consensus around a definition of engagement and improve our understanding of how engagement may influence effectiveness. This work has helped to establish a clearer research agenda. However, to test the hypotheses generated by the conceptual modules, we need to know how to measure engagement in a valid and reliable way. The aim of this viewpoint is to provide an overview of engagement measurement options that can be employed in eHealth and mHealth behavior change intervention evaluations, discuss methodological considerations, and provide direction for future research. To identify measures, we used snowball sampling, starting from systematic reviews of engagement research as well as those utilized in studies known to the authors. A wide range of methods to measure engagement were identified, including qualitative measures, self-report questionnaires, ecological momentary assessments, system usage data, sensor data, social media data, and psychophysiological measures. Each measurement method is appraised and examples are provided to illustrate possible use in eHealth and mHealth behavior change research. Recommendations for future research are provided, based on the limitations of current methods and the heavy reliance on system usage data as the sole assessment of engagement. The validation and adoption of a wider range of engagement measurements and their thoughtful application to the study of engagement are encouraged.

          Related collections

          Most cited references100

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Persuasive System Design Does Matter: A Systematic Review of Adherence to Web-Based Interventions

          Background Although web-based interventions for promoting health and health-related behavior can be effective, poor adherence is a common issue that needs to be addressed. Technology as a means to communicate the content in web-based interventions has been neglected in research. Indeed, technology is often seen as a black-box, a mere tool that has no effect or value and serves only as a vehicle to deliver intervention content. In this paper we examine technology from a holistic perspective. We see it as a vital and inseparable aspect of web-based interventions to help explain and understand adherence. Objective This study aims to review the literature on web-based health interventions to investigate whether intervention characteristics and persuasive design affect adherence to a web-based intervention. Methods We conducted a systematic review of studies into web-based health interventions. Per intervention, intervention characteristics, persuasive technology elements and adherence were coded. We performed a multiple regression analysis to investigate whether these variables could predict adherence. Results We included 101 articles on 83 interventions. The typical web-based intervention is meant to be used once a week, is modular in set-up, is updated once a week, lasts for 10 weeks, includes interaction with the system and a counselor and peers on the web, includes some persuasive technology elements, and about 50% of the participants adhere to the intervention. Regarding persuasive technology, we see that primary task support elements are most commonly employed (mean 2.9 out of a possible 7.0). Dialogue support and social support are less commonly employed (mean 1.5 and 1.2 out of a possible 7.0, respectively). When comparing the interventions of the different health care areas, we find significant differences in intended usage (p = .004), setup (p < .001), updates (p < .001), frequency of interaction with a counselor (p < .001), the system (p = .003) and peers (p = .017), duration (F = 6.068, p = .004), adherence (F = 4.833, p = .010) and the number of primary task support elements (F = 5.631, p = .005). Our final regression model explained 55% of the variance in adherence. In this model, a RCT study as opposed to an observational study, increased interaction with a counselor, more frequent intended usage, more frequent updates and more extensive employment of dialogue support significantly predicted better adherence. Conclusions Using intervention characteristics and persuasive technology elements, a substantial amount of variance in adherence can be explained. Although there are differences between health care areas on intervention characteristics, health care area per se does not predict adherence. Rather, the differences in technology and interaction predict adherence. The results of this study can be used to make an informed decision about how to design a web-based intervention to which patients are more likely to adhere.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A behavior change model for internet interventions.

              The Internet has become a major component to health care and has important implications for the future of the health care system. One of the most notable aspects of the Web is its ability to provide efficient, interactive, and tailored content to the user. Given the wide reach and extensive capabilities of the Internet, researchers in behavioral medicine have been using it to develop and deliver interactive and comprehensive treatment programs with the ultimate goal of impacting patient behavior and reducing unwanted symptoms. To date, however, many of these interventions have not been grounded in theory or developed from behavior change models, and no overarching model to explain behavior change in Internet interventions has yet been published. The purpose of this article is to propose a model to help guide future Internet intervention development and predict and explain behavior changes and symptom improvement produced by Internet interventions. The model purports that effective Internet interventions produce (and maintain) behavior change and symptom improvement via nine nonlinear steps: the user, influenced by environmental factors, affects website use and adherence, which is influenced by support and website characteristics. Website use leads to behavior change and symptom improvement through various mechanisms of change. The improvements are sustained via treatment maintenance. By grounding Internet intervention research within a scientific framework, developers can plan feasible, informed, and testable Internet interventions, and this form of treatment will become more firmly established.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Med Internet Res
                J. Med. Internet Res
                JMIR
                Journal of Medical Internet Research
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                1439-4456
                1438-8871
                November 2018
                16 November 2018
                : 20
                : 11
                : e292
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health School of Medicine University of Adelaide Adelaide Australia
                [2 ] Department of Movement and Sports Sciences Ghent University Brussels Belgium
                [3 ] Health Research Institute, Centre for Physical Activity and Health Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences University of Limerick Limerick Ireland
                [4 ] Physical Activity Research Group, Appleton Institute School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences Central Queensland University Rockhampton Australia
                [5 ] Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity, Sansom Institute School of Health Sciences University of South Australia Adelaide Australia
                [6 ] Department of Rheumatology Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam Netherlands
                [7 ] Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health National University of Singapore Singapore Singapore
                [8 ] Centre for Sport and Exercise Sciences University of Malaya Kuala Lumpur Malaysia
                [9 ] Centre for Innovative Research Across the Life Course Faculty of Health and Life Sciences Coventry University Coventry United Kingdom
                [10 ] Department of Nutritional Sciences College of Agriculture & Life Sciences University of Arizona Tucson, AZ United States
                [11 ] Department of Health Promotion Care and Public Health Research Institute Maastricht University Maastricht Netherlands
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Camille E Short camille.short@ 123456adelaide.edu.au
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4177-4251
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7473-140X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0892-6591
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4289-9248
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8676-0224
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1274-968X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5770-6723
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1020-4640
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4445-8094
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9285-6962
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6696-5601
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3731-6610
                Article
                v20i11e292
                10.2196/jmir.9397
                6269627
                30446482
                80e90c4d-62d5-47a0-8698-9191db39f490
                ©Camille E Short, Ann DeSmet, Catherine Woods, Susan L Williams, Carol Maher, Anouk Middelweerd, Andre Matthias Müller, Petra A Wark, Corneel Vandelanotte, Louise Poppe, Melanie D Hingle, Rik Crutzen. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 16.11.2018.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/.as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 15 November 2017
                : 15 March 2018
                : 1 August 2018
                : 10 September 2018
                Categories
                Viewpoint
                Viewpoint

                Medicine
                telemedicine,internet,health promotion,evaluation studies,treatment adherence and compliance,outcome and process assessment (health care)

                Comments

                Comment on this article