Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33963864›Full record

ReviewTranslational behavioral medicine2021

Acceptability of digital health interventions: embracing the complexity.

Olga Perski, Camille E Short

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Translational behavioral medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 167 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
167citing papers in PubMed, 13 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

167 citing papers in PubMed, 13 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. Digital training for building resilience: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress · 2022
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Does adding coaching calls into an online lifestyle intervention for cancer survivors make it more acceptable and feasible than a self-guided version?Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Trial
  20. Trial

107 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

2 authors.

Olga PerskiDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3285-3174
Camille E ShortMelbourne Centre for Behaviour Change, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4177-4251

Funding

Cancer Research UK C1417/A22962
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acceptability is a core concept in digital health. Available frameworks have not clearly articulated why and how researchers, practitioners and policy makers may wish to study the concept of acceptability. Here, we aim to discuss (i) the ways in which acceptability might differ from closely related concepts, including user engagement; (ii) the utility of the concept of acceptability in digital health research and practice; (iii) social and cultural norms that influence acceptability; and (iv) pragmatic means of measuring acceptability, within and beyond the research process. Our intention is not to offer solutions to these open questions but to initiate a debate within the digital health community. We conducted a narrative review of theoretical and empirical examples from the literature. First, we argue that acceptability may usefully be considered an emergent property of a complex, adaptive system of interacting components (e.g., affective attitude, beliefs), which in turn influences (and is influenced by) user engagement. Second, acceptability is important due to its ability to predict and explain key outcomes of interest, including user engagement and intervention effectiveness. Third, precisely what people find acceptable is deeply contextualized and interlinked with prevailing social and cultural norms. Understanding and designing for such norms (e.g., through drawing on principles of user centered design) is therefore key. Finally, there is a lack of standard acceptability measures and thresholds. Star ratings coupled with free-text responses may provide a pragmatic means of capturing acceptability. Acceptability is a multifaceted concept, which may usefully be studied with a complexity science lens.

Indexed as

TelemedicineText MessagingHumansAcceptabilityComplexityeHealthEngagementmHealthTechnology acceptance

Identifiers

PMID33963864
PMCPMC8320880

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.