Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29636323›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2018

Engagement With a Trauma Recovery Internet Intervention Explained With the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA): Longitudinal Study.

Carolyn M Yeager, Kotaro Shoji, Aleksandra Luszczynska, Charles C Benight

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Carolyn M YeagerDepartment of Psychology, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2419-6370
Kotaro ShojiTrauma Health and Hazards Center, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6677-1391
Aleksandra LuszczynskaTrauma Health and Hazards Center, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4704-9544
Charles C BenightDepartment of Psychology, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6014-1700
University of Colorado Colorado Springs · USUniwersytet SWPS · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere has been a growing trend in the delivery of mental health treatment via technology (ie, electronic health, eHealth). However, engagement with eHealth interventions is a concern, and theoretically based research in this area is sparse. Factors that influence engagement are poorly understood, especially in trauma survivors with symptoms of posttraumatic stress.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to examine engagement with a trauma recovery eHealth intervention using the Health Action Process Approach theoretical model. Outcome expectancy, perceived need, pretreatment self-efficacy, and trauma symptoms influence the formation of intentions (motivational phase), followed by planning, which mediates the translation of intentions into engagement (volitional phase). We hypothesized the mediational effect of planning would be moderated by level of treatment self-efficacy.

methodsTrauma survivors from around the United States used the eHealth intervention for 2 weeks. We collected baseline demographic, social cognitive predictors, and distress symptoms and measured engagement subjectively and objectively throughout the intervention.

resultsThe motivational phase model explained 48% of the variance, and outcome expectations (beta=.36), perceived need (beta=.32), pretreatment self-efficacy (beta=.13), and trauma symptoms (beta=.21) were significant predictors of intention (N=440). In the volitional phase, results of the moderated mediation model indicated for low levels of treatment self-efficacy, planning mediated the effects of intention on levels of engagement (B=0.89, 95% CI 0.143-2.605; N=115).

conclusionsThough many factors can affect engagement, these results offer a theoretical framework for understanding engagement with an eHealth intervention. This study highlighted the importance of perceived need, outcome expectations, self-efficacy, and baseline distress symptoms in the formation of intentions to use the intervention. For those low in treatment self-efficacy, planning may play an important role in the translation of intentions into engagement. Results of this study may help bring some clarification to the question of what makes eHealth interventions work.

Indexed as

digital health interventionelectronic health (eHealth)engagementHealth Action Process Approach (HAPA)internetoutcome expectationsPTSDstress disorders, post-traumatictrauma

Identifiers

PMID29636323
PMCPMC5938690
OpenAlexW2798179064

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.