Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31890620›Full record

ArticleInternet interventions2019

The peril of self-reported adherence in digital interventions: A brief example.

Jayde A M Flett, Benjamin D Fletcher, Benjamin C Riordan, Tess Patterson, Harlene Hayne, Tamlin S Conner

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Internet interventions, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Psychosocial Correlates of Adherence to Mind-Body Interventions.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2025
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

6 authors.

Jayde A M FlettDepartment of Psychology, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand.
Benjamin D FletcherDepartment of Psychology, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand.
Benjamin C RiordanDepartment of Psychology, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand.
Tess PattersonDepartment of Psychological Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand.
Harlene HayneDepartment of Psychology, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand.
Tamlin S ConnerDepartment of Psychology, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adherence is an important predictor of intervention outcomes, but not all measures of adherence are created equally. Here, we analyzed whether there was a discrepancy between self-report adherence and objective adherence in a digital mindfulness meditation randomised, controlled trial. A sample of 174 young adult undergraduate university students trialled either an app-based or email-based mindfulness meditation program (or an app-based attention control). Participants' adherence (number of sessions completed) and mental health was self-reported. Objective adherence data were provided by the owners of the digital mindfulness programs. We found evidence of inflated self-reported adherence to the app-based intervention and argue that the inflation was not explained by social desirability biases because participants were aware we would have access to object data and no remuneration was tied to adherence. We also comment on the different conclusions we would have drawn about the effectiveness of the digital interventions on mental health, had we used the self-reported adherence data rather than the objective adherence data. We use this example to suggest that it may be perilous to rely on self-reported measures of adherence when assessing the effectiveness of digital interventions.

Indexed as

AdherenceApplicationsDigital interventionsM, meanMobile phonesRCT, randomized, controlled trialSD, standard deviation

Identifiers

PMID31890620
PMCPMC6926264

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.