Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33898592›Full record

ArticlemHealth2021

Engaging youth in mHealth: what works and how can we be sure?

Lisa B Hightow-Weidman, Keith J Horvath, Hyman Scott, Jonathan Hill-Rorie, Jose A Bauermeister

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in mHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

31 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. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  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

5 authors.

Lisa B Hightow-WeidmanInstitute of Global Health and Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Keith J HorvathDepartment of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.
Hyman ScottUniversity of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Jonathan Hill-RorieFenway Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Jose A BauermeisterUniversity of Pennsylvania, School of Nursing, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

The UNC/Emory Center for Innovative Technology (iTech) across the prevention and care continuumU19HD089881 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HIGHTOW-WEIDMAN, LISA B, SULLIVAN, PATRICK SEAN · 2016 to 2022
$35.8M
NICHD NIH HHS U19 HD089881
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundYouth participating in mobile health (mHealth) intervention trials often engage with the technologies [e.g., applications (app) or mobile-optimized websites] only partially, often prematurely discontinuing use altogether. Limited engagement can impact the interventions effect on behavior change and compromise researchers' ability to test and estimate the true efficacy of their interventions. While mHealth interventions have been shown to be feasible and acceptable to youth, across diverse health conditions, strategies to increase engagement have been less well studied. Specifically, within HIV prevention and care mHealth interventions, there is not consensus as to which components represent the "key ingredients" to support maximal engagement of youth. Further, successful intervention evaluation requires the ability to systematically track users' engagement with intervention components (i.e., paradata) to evaluate its effects on behavior change.

methodsAs part of the Adolescent Medicine Trials Network UNC/Emory Center for Innovative Technology (iTech) portfolio of HIV/AIDS Interventions, we present diverse strategies used across five mHealth protocols seeking to promote youth engagement, track and measure engagement through paradata, and incorporate these components into mHealth intervention evaluations.

resultsWe describe the importance of defining and measuring engagement using case studies from iTech to illustrate how different research teams select mHealth features to promote youth engagement over time, taking into account features embedded in the technology design, key mechanisms of change and trial outcomes (e.g., HIV testing, pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake and adherence, HIV treatment adherence). Finally, we discuss how the research teams plan to evaluate engagement's role on their intervention's outcomes.

conclusionsBased on this synthesis, we discuss strategies to enhance mHealth engagement during intervention development and design, ensure its monitoring and reporting throughout the trial, and evaluate its impact on trial outcomes.

Indexed as

engagementHIV prevention and caremHealth

Identifiers

PMID33898592
PMCPMC8063019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.