Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34963143›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2021

Estimating the impact of engagement with digital health interventions on patient outcomes in randomized trials.

Lyndsay A Nelson, Andrew J Spieker, Lindsay S Mayberry, Candace McNaughton, Robert A Greevy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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.

Lyndsay A NelsonDepartment of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Andrew J SpiekerDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Lindsay S MayberryDepartment of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Candace McNaughtonDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Robert A GreevyDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.

Funding

Vanderbilt Center for Diabetes Translation ResearchP30DK092986 · NIDDK · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI ELASY, TOM A · 2011 to 2020
$6.7M
Improving Medication Adherence among Underserved Patients with Type 2 DiabetesR01DK100694 · NIDDK · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI MAYBERRY, LINDSAY S. · 2014 to 2018
$3.3M
Vanderbilt Scholars in T4 Translational Research (V-STTaR) ProgramK12HL137943 · NHLBI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI KRIPALANI, SUNIL, ROUMIE, CHRISTIANNE L. · 2017 to 2021
$2.9M
NHLBI NIH HHS K12 HL137943NHLBI NIH HHS K12-HL137943NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092986NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK100694NIDDK NIH HHS R01-DK100694NIH HHS P30-DK092986
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveGuidance is needed on studying engagement and treatment effects in digital health interventions, including levels required for benefit. We evaluated multiple analytic approaches for understanding the association between engagement and clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe defined engagement as intervention participants' response rate to interactive text messages, and considered moderation, standard regression, mediation, and a modified instrumental variable (IV) analysis to investigate the relationship between engagement and clinical outcomes. We applied each approach to two randomized controlled trials featuring text message content in the intervention: REACH (Rapid Encouragement/Education and Communications for Health), which targeted diabetes, and VERB (Vanderbilt Emergency Room Bundle), which targeted hypertension.

resultsIn REACH, the treatment effect on hemoglobin A1c was estimated to be -0.73% (95% CI: [-1.29, -0.21]; P = 0.008), and in VERB, the treatment effect on systolic blood pressure was estimated to be -10.1 mmHg (95% CI: [-17.7, -2.8]; P = 0.007). Only the IV analyses suggested an effect of engagement on outcomes; the difference in treatment effects between engagers and non-engagers was -0.29% to -0.51% in the REACH study and -1.08 to -3.25 mmHg in the VERB study. DISCUSSION: Standard regression and mediation have less power than a modified IV analysis, but the IV approach requires specification of assumptions. This is the first review of the strengths and limitations of various approaches to evaluating the impact of engagement on outcomes.

conclusionsUnderstanding the role of engagement in digital health interventions can help reveal when and how these interventions achieve desired outcomes.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusHypertensionText MessagingBlood PressureHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicbehavior interventiondigital technologymobile healthrandomized controlled trialuser engagement

Identifiers

PMID34963143
PMCPMC8714267

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.