Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30767905›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019

A Framework for Analyzing and Measuring Usage and Engagement Data (AMUsED) in Digital Interventions: Viewpoint.

Sascha Miller, Ben Ainsworth, Lucy Yardley, Alex Milton, Mark Weal, Peter Smith, Leanne Morrison

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07399106 (EN-CAMHS 2), which is not on this map. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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.

NCT07399106 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

EN-CAMHS 2: Enhancing CAMHS Referrals

TypeobservationalSponsorGreater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation TrustRan2026 to 2026Enrolled235ConditionsNo Conditions, Improving Referrals Into NHS CAMHSArmsWork Package 1, Work Package 2, Work Package 3, Work Package 4
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  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

7 authors.

Sascha MillerCenter for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1949-5774
Ben AinsworthDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5098-1092
Lucy YardleyCenter for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3853-883X
Alex MiltonSchool of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2207-2537
Mark WealWeb and Internet Science Group, School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6251-8786
Peter SmithDepartment of Social Statistics and Demography, School of Economic, Social and Political Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4423-5410
Leanne MorrisonCenter for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9961-551X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Trials of digital interventions can yield extensive, in-depth usage data, yet usage analyses tend to focus on broad descriptive summaries of how an intervention has been used by the whole sample. This paper proposes a novel framework to guide systematic, fine-grained usage analyses that better enables understanding of how an intervention works, when, and for whom. The framework comprises three stages to assist in the following: (1) familiarization with the intervention and its relationship to the captured data, (2) identification of meaningful measures of usage and specifying research questions to guide systematic analyses of usage data, and (3) preparation of datasheets and consideration of available analytical methods with which to examine the data. The framework can be applied to inform data capture during the development of a digital intervention and/or in the analysis of data after the completion of an evaluation trial. We will demonstrate how the framework shaped preparation and aided efficient data capture for a digital intervention to lower transmission of cold and flu viruses in the home, as well as how it informed a systematic, in-depth analysis of usage data collected from a separate digital intervention designed to promote self-management of colds and flu. The Analyzing and Measuring Usage and Engagement Data (AMUsED) framework guides systematic and efficient in-depth usage analyses that will support standardized reporting with transparent and replicable findings. These detailed findings may also enable examination of what constitutes effective engagement with particular interventions.

Indexed as

Data AnalysisFemaleHumansInternetMalebehavioral researchdata analysishealthinternetpatient engagement

Identifiers

PMID30767905
PMCPMC6396072

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.