Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28617711›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in HIV and AIDS2017

Addressing engagement in technology-based behavioural HIV interventions through paradata metrics.

José A Bauermeister, Jesse M Golinkoff, Kathryn E Muessig, Keith J Horvath, Lisa B Hightow-Weidman

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in HIV and AIDS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04998019 (Pragmatic Efficacy Trial of mHealth to Improve HIV Outcomes in the DC Cohort), which is not on this map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04998019 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Pragmatic Efficacy Trial of mHealth to Improve HIV Outcomes in the DC Cohort

TypeinterventionalSponsorGeorge Washington UniversityRan2022 to 2025Enrolled682ConditionsHIV/AIDSArmsPositiveLinks
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

José A BauermeisteraUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania bUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina cUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Jesse M Golinkoff
Kathryn E Muessig
Keith J Horvath
Lisa B Hightow-Weidman
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

The UNC/Emory Center for Innovative Technology (iTech) across the prevention and care continuumU19HD089881 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HIGHTOW-WEIDMAN, LISA B, SULLIVAN, PATRICK SEAN · 2016 to 2022
$35.8M
Development of a Tailored HIV Prevention Intervention for Young MenR34MH101997 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI BAUERMEISTER, JOSE ARTURO · 2015 to 2017
$645k
Addressing stigma among Black MSM in a mobile phone and internet HIV interventionR21MH105292 · NIMH · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BAUERMEISTER, JOSE ARTURO, MUESSIG, KATHRYN E · 2015 to 2016
$443k
NICHD NIH HHS U19 HD089881NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH105292NIMH NIH HHS R34 MH101997
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe goal of this review was to examine how often researchers report participants' online engagement using paradata (i.e. intervention usage metrics) when describing the outcomes of online behavioural HIV prevention and care interventions. We also highlight the utility of paradata collection and analysis in future technology-based trials. RECENT

findingsWe focused on studies indexed on PubMed and published between 1 January 2016 and 31 March 2017 that reported the development and testing of online behavioural interventions for HIV prevention and/or care. Of the 705 extracted citations, six met study criteria. SUMMARY: Only one study reported paradata reflecting participants' engagement with a technology-based intervention. Researchers should systematically collect and analyse paradata to strengthen the evidence base for technology-based interventions (do they work?), advance the use of behaviour change theory across modalities and platforms (how/why do they work?) and inform reach and scale-up efforts (for whom do they work?). Researchers may also rely on paradata to examine dose-response relationships due to user engagement, to identify replicable core components linked to behaviour change outcomes, to allocate resources judiciously and drive down development costs, and to pool these metrics for use in future meta-analyses.

Indexed as

Behavior TherapyInternetHIV InfectionsHumans

Identifiers

PMID28617711
PMCPMC5637536
OpenAlexW2625286693

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.