Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30664463›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2019

A Library of Analytic Indicators to Evaluate Effective Engagement with Consumer mHealth Apps for Chronic Conditions: Scoping Review.

Quynh Pham, Gary Graham, Carme Carrion, Plinio P Morita, Emily Seto, Jennifer N Stinson, Joseph A Cafazzo

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
39.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

88 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 157 citations in OpenAlex.

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

28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Quynh PhamInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0540-4181
Gary GrahamCentre for Global eHealth Innovation, Techna Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9667-9999
Carme CarrioneHealth Center, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Catalonia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1479-7551
Plinio P MoritaInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9515-6478
Emily SetoInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8723-5915
Jennifer N StinsonInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9969-8052
Joseph A CafazzoInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3114-4440
University Health Network · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAUniversitat Oberta de Catalunya · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is mixed evidence to support current ambitions for mobile health (mHealth) apps to improve chronic health and well-being. One proposed explanation for this variable effect is that users do not engage with apps as intended. The application of analytics, defined as the use of data to generate new insights, is an emerging approach to study and interpret engagement with mHealth interventions.

objectiveThis study aimed to consolidate how analytic indicators of engagement have previously been applied across clinical and technological contexts, to inform how they might be optimally applied in future evaluations.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review to catalog the range of analytic indicators being used in evaluations of consumer mHealth apps for chronic conditions. We categorized studies according to app structure and application of engagement data and calculated descriptive data for each category. Chi-square and Fisher exact tests of independence were applied to calculate differences between coded variables.

resultsA total of 41 studies met our inclusion criteria. The average mHealth evaluation included for review was a two-group pretest-posttest randomized controlled trial of a hybrid-structured app for mental health self-management, had 103 participants, lasted 5 months, did not provide access to health care provider services, measured 3 analytic indicators of engagement, segmented users based on engagement data, applied engagement data for descriptive analyses, and did not report on attrition. Across the reviewed studies, engagement was measured using the following 7 analytic indicators: the number of measures recorded (76%, 31/41), the frequency of interactions logged (73%, 30/41), the number of features accessed (49%, 20/41), the number of log-ins or sessions logged (46%, 19/41), the number of modules or lessons started or completed (29%, 12/41), time spent engaging with the app (27%, 11/41), and the number or content of pages accessed (17%, 7/41). Engagement with unstructured apps was mostly measured by the number of features accessed (8/10, P=.04), and engagement with hybrid apps was mostly measured by the number of measures recorded (21/24, P=.03). A total of 24 studies presented, described, or summarized the data generated from applying analytic indicators to measure engagement. The remaining 17 studies used or planned to use these data to infer a relationship between engagement patterns and intended outcomes.

conclusionsAlthough researchers measured on average 3 indicators in a single study, the majority reported findings descriptively and did not further investigate how engagement with an app contributed to its impact on health and well-being. Researchers are gaining nuanced insights into engagement but are not yet characterizing effective engagement for improved outcomes. Raising the standard of mHealth app efficacy through measuring analytic indicators of engagement may enable greater confidence in the causal impact of apps on improved chronic health and well-being.

Indexed as

Chi-Square DistributionChronic DiseaseHumansPatient ParticipationProgram EvaluationTelemedicineadherenceanalyticschronic diseaseeffective engagementengagementlog datamobile applicationsmobile healthscoping review

Identifiers

PMID30664463
PMCPMC6356188
OpenAlexW2910244894

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.