Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32536888›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2020

The Concept and Components of Engagement in Different Domains Applied to eHealth: A Systematic Scoping Review.

Saskia M Kelders, Llewellyn Ellardus van Zyl, Geke D S Ludden

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

88 citing papers in PubMed, 7 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. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  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

3 authors.

Saskia M KeldersDepartment of Psychology, Health and Technology, Centre for eHealth and Wellbeing Research, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
Llewellyn Ellardus van ZylOptentia Research Focus Area, North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa.
Geke D S LuddenDepartment of Design, Production and Management, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.

Funding

EPA EP-C-17-031
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Within the context of eHealth interventions, a shared understanding of what constitutes engagement in and with eHealth technologies is missing. A clearer understanding of engagement could provide a valuable starting point for guidelines relating to the design and development of eHealth technologies. Given the cross-disciplinary use of the term "engagement," investigating how engagement (and its components) is conceptualized in different domains could lead to determining common components that are deemed important for eHealth technological design. As such, the aim of this paper was 3-fold: (a) to investigate in which domains engagement features, (b) to determine what constitutes engagement in these different domains, and (c) to determine whether there are any common components that seem to be important. A comprehensive systematic scoping review of the existing literature was conducted in order to identify the domains in which engagement is used, to extract the associated definitions of engagement, and to identify the dimensionality or components thereof. A search of five bibliographic databases yielded 1,231 unique records. All titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. This led to 69 articles being included for further analyses. The results showed that engagement is used in seven functional domains, categorized as follows: student (

Indexed as

eHealthengagementmHealthpositive organizational e-interventionssystematic scoping review

Identifiers

PMID32536888
PMCPMC7266981

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.