Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30126832›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2018

A Process Evaluation of a Web-Based Mental Health Portal (WalkAlong) Using Google Analytics.

Michael Jae Song, John Ward, Fiona Choi, Mohammadali Nikoo, Anastasia Frank, Farhud Shams, Katarina Tabi, Daniel Vigo, Michael Krausz

Abstract 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 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Web-Based Physiotherapy Resources for Bronchiectasis: Evaluation of Content, Quality, and Implementation Evidence.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. iScience · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

9 authors.

Michael Jae SongDepartment of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3320-1944
John WardDepartment of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4504-6526
Fiona ChoiDepartment of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7626-8669
Mohammadali NikooDepartment of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7692-3923
Anastasia FrankDepartment of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3584-5911
Farhud ShamsDepartment of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8720-3748
Katarina TabiDepartment of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2826-6973
Daniel VigoCentre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addictions, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4445-4122
Michael KrauszDepartment of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3509-7274

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the increasing amount of research on Web-based mental health interventions with proven efficacy, high attrition rates decrease their effectiveness. Continued process evaluations should be performed to maximize the target population's engagement. Google Analytics has been used to evaluate various health-related Web-based programs and may also be useful for Web-based mental health programs.

objectiveThe objective of our study was to evaluate WalkAlong.ca, a youth-oriented mental health web-portal, using Google Analytics to inform the improvement strategy for the platform and to demonstrate the use of Google Analytics as a tool for process evaluation of Web-based mental health interventions.

methodsGoogle Analytics was used to monitor user activity during WalkAlong's first year of operation (Nov 13, 2013-Nov 13, 2014). Selected Google Analytic variables were overall website engagement including pages visited per session, utilization rate of specific features, and user access mode and location.

resultsThe results included data from 3076 users viewing 29,299 pages. Users spent less average time on Mindsteps (0 minute 35 seconds) and self-exercises (1 minute 08 seconds), which are important self-help tools, compared with that on the Screener tool (3 minutes 4 seconds). Of all visitors, 82.3% (4378/5318) were desktop users, followed by 12.7 % (677/5318) mobile phone and 5.0% (263/5318) tablet users. Both direct traffic (access via URL) and referrals by email had more than 7 pages viewed per session and longer than average time of 6 minutes per session. The majority of users (67%) accessed the platform from Canada.

conclusionsEngagement and feature utilization rates are higher among people who receive personal invitations to visit the site. Low utilization rates with specific features offer a starting place for further exploration of users in order to identify the root cause. The data provided by Google Analytics, although informative, can be supplemented by other evaluation methods (ie, qualitative methods) in order to better determine the modifications required to improve user engagement. Google Analytics can play a vital role in highlighting the preferences of those using Web-based mental health tools.

Indexed as

evaluationGoogle Analyticsmental healthwebsite

Identifiers

PMID30126832
PMCPMC6121139

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.