Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32990635›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2020

Rates of Attrition and Dropout in App-Based Interventions for Chronic Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, Sumathy Ravi, Leonard Arnolda, Xiaoqi Feng, Glen Maberly, Thomas Astell-Burt

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05912439 (Smartphone Based Health Behaviour Intervention for Adolescents; Usage and Daily Attrition Rates.), which is not on this map. Cited by 353 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
353citing papers in PubMed, 14 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.

NCT05912439 naunknown statusnot on this map

Smartphone Based Health Behaviour Intervention for Adolescents; Usage and Daily Attrition Rates.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of IcelandRan2017 to 2023Enrolled670ConditionsHealthy Adolescents in School-based PopulationArmsSidekickHealth
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

353 citing papers in PubMed, 14 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. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

293 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

6 authors.

Gideon Meyerowitz-KatzWestern Sydney Diabetes, Western Sydney Local Health District, Blacktown NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1156-9345
Sumathy RaviWestern Sydney Diabetes, Western Sydney Local Health District, Blacktown NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1097-0671
Leonard ArnoldaSchool of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8173-3318
Xiaoqi FengSchool of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3421-220X
Glen MaberlyWestern Sydney Diabetes, Western Sydney Local Health District, Blacktown NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1725-7094
Thomas Astell-BurtSchool of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1498-4851

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic disease represents a large and growing burden to the health care system worldwide. One method of managing this burden is the use of app-based interventions; however attrition, defined as lack of patient use of the intervention, is an issue for these interventions. While many apps have been developed, there is some evidence that they have significant issues with sustained use, with up to 98% of people only using the app for a short time before dropping out and/or dropping use down to the point where the app is no longer effective at helping to manage disease.

objectiveOur objectives are to systematically appraise and perform a meta-analysis on dropout rates in apps for chronic disease and to qualitatively synthesize possible reasons for these dropout rates that could be addressed in future interventions.

methodsMEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL (Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Embase were searched from 2003 to the present to look at mobile health (mHealth) and attrition or dropout. Studies, either randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational trials, looking at chronic disease with measures of dropout were included. Meta-analysis of attrition rates was conducted in Stata, version 15.1 (StataCorp LLC). Included studies were also qualitatively synthesized to examine reasons for dropout and avenues for future research.

resultsOf 833 studies identified in the literature search, 17 were included in the review and meta-analysis. Out of 17 studies, 9 (53%) were RCTs and 8 (47%) were observational trials, with both types covering a range of chronic diseases. The pooled dropout rate was 43% (95% CI 29-57), with observational studies having a higher dropout rate (49%, 95% CI 27-70) than RCTs in more controlled scenarios, which only had a 40% dropout rate (95% CI 16-63). The studies were extremely varied, which is represented statistically in the high degree of heterogeneity (I

conclusionsDropout rates in mHealth interventions are high, but possible areas to minimize attrition exist. Reducing dropout rates will make these apps more effective for disease management in the long term.

trial registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42019128737; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019128737.

Indexed as

Chronic DiseaseHumansInternet-Based InterventionMobile ApplicationsTelemedicineattritionchronic diseasedropoutmHealthmobile apps

Identifiers

PMID32990635
PMCPMC7556375

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.