Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34471610›Full record

ArticleInternet interventions2021

The effect of user interface on treatment engagement in a self-guided digital problem-solving intervention: A randomized controlled trial.

Amira Hentati, Erik Forsell, Brjánn Ljótsson, Viktor Kaldo, Nils Lindefors, Martin Kraepelien

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Internet interventions, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amira HentatiCenter for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm Health Care Services, Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden.
Erik ForsellCenter for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm Health Care Services, Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden.
Brjánn LjótssonDivision of Psychology, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Viktor KaldoCenter for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm Health Care Services, Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden.
Nils LindeforsCenter for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm Health Care Services, Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden.
Martin KraepelienCenter for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm Health Care Services, Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karolinska Institutet · SEStockholm Health Care Services · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResources are spent worldwide on the development of digital platforms and their user interfaces (UIs) for digital mental health services (DMHS). However, studies investigating the potential benefits of different UIs for DMHS are currently lacking. To fill this knowledge gap, the aim of this study was to investigate differences in treatment engagement between two different UIs for DMHS.

methodsA total of 397 participants from the Swedish general public were randomized (1:1) to use a self-guided digital problem-solving intervention during one week, either with an optimized UI (

findingsThere were no significant differences between the UIs in ratings of usability or treatment credibility. However, participants who used the optimized UI were significantly more engaged with the intervention as measured by usage of the intervention at least once (odds ratio 2.54, 95% CI [1.67, 3.85]), total number of generated solutions (mean difference 1.41, 95% CI [0.72, 2.11]), and mean number of generated solutions per initiated problem-solving attempt (mean difference 1.45, 95% CI [1.06, 1.85]). Other findings included participants using the optimized UI rating the intervention as easier to understand, while feeling more overwhelmed, than those using the basic UI.

interpretationOur findings indicate that an optimized UI based on UX design principles, in comparison to a basic UI comprising elementary UI features, do not affect overall self-rated usability or treatment credibility but increases some measures of behavioral engagement with a digital intervention.

fundingFunded by the Government of Sweden, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs.

Indexed as

Digital interventionProblem-solvingSelf-guidedTreatment engagementUser experienceUser interface

Identifiers

PMID34471610
PMCPMC8387893
OpenAlexW3194186015

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.