Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31414664›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2019

Adherence Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials Examining Manualized Multisession Online Interventions: Systematic Review of Practices and Proposal for Reporting Standards.

Ina Beintner, Bianka Vollert, Anna-Carlotta Zarski, Felix Bolinski, Peter Musiat, Dennis Görlich, David Daniel Ebert, Corinna Jacobi

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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. Cited by 52 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 8 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.

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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. A Three-Armed Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Effectiveness, Acceptance, and Negative Effects ofInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  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

8 authors.

Ina Beintner *Faculty of Psychology, School of Science, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1779-9878
Bianka Vollert *Faculty of Psychology, School of Science, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5462-9723
Anna-Carlotta ZarskiInstitute of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities, Social Sciences, and Theology, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0517-6668
Felix BolinskiDepartment of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4346-7113
Peter MusiatDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7439-0441
Dennis GörlichInstitute of Biostatistics and Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2574-9419
David Daniel EbertInstitute of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities, Social Sciences, and Theology, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6820-0146
Corinna JacobiFaculty of Psychology, School of Science, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0982-0596

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdherence reflects the extent to which individuals experience or engage with the content of online interventions and poses a major challenge. Neglecting to examine and report adherence and its relation to outcomes can compromise the interpretation of research findings.

objectiveThe aim of this systematic review is to analyze how adherence is accounted for in publications and to propose standards for measuring and reporting adherence to online interventions.

methodsWe performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials on online interventions for the prevention and treatment of common mental disorders (depression, anxiety disorders, substance related disorders, and eating disorders) published between January 2006 and May 2018 and indexed in Medline and Web of Science. We included primary publications on manualized online treatments (more than 1 session and successive access to content) and examined how adherence was reported in these publications.

resultsWe identified 216 publications that met our inclusion criteria. Adherence was addressed in 85% of full-text manuscripts, but only in 31% of abstracts. A median of three usage metrics were reported; the most frequently reported usage metric (61%) was intervention completion. Manuscripts published in specialized electronic health journals more frequently included information on the relation of adherence and outcomes.

conclusionsWe found substantial variety in the reporting of adherence and the usage metrics used to operationalize adherence. This limits the comparability of results and impedes the integration of findings from different studies. Based on our findings, we propose reporting standards for future publications on online interventions.

Indexed as

Cognitive Behavioral TherapyGuideline AdherenceInternetRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTelemedicineHumansMental DisordersResearch Designadherenceattritionbehavior changecomplianceCONSORT eHealthehealthe-mental healthmental healthreporting standardsreviewusage

Identifiers

PMID31414664
PMCPMC6713038

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.