Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35353043›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

Barriers and Considerations in the Design and Implementation of Digital Behavioral Interventions: Qualitative Analysis.

Gabriela Marcu, Steven J Ondersma, Allison N Spiller, Brianna M Broderick, Reema Kadri, Lorraine R Buis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Experiences of technology for increasing physical activity of older adults: a qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gabriela MarcuSchool of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7150-5784
Steven J OndersmaDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, & Reproductive Biology and the Division of Public Health, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1134-7723
Allison N SpillerSchool of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5640-1821
Brianna M BroderickSchool of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9604-0880
Reema KadriDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0935-3761
Lorraine R BuisSchool of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5855-9972
University of Michigan · USMichigan State University · US

Funding

Accelerating collaborative, cumulative, and open intervention science with an e-intervention authoring platformU24EB028990 · NIBIB · WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY · PI ONDERSMA, STEVEN J. · 2019 to 2023
$1.4M
NIBIB NIH HHS U24 EB028990
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital behavioral interventions have become increasingly popular for their ability to support patient diagnosis and treatment, chronic disease self-management, behavior change, and adherence to recommended care. However, digital intervention development is impeded by challenges such as limited technical skills, limited access to developers, and cost. The purpose of this study is to elicit in-depth qualitative feedback from intervention developers who have interest in digital behavioral interventions but lack programming skills regarding the barriers they experience and key considerations in the design and implementation of digital interventions.

objectiveThis study aims to understand barriers in the design and implementation of digital behavioral interventions, as well as to identify key considerations for researchers who are developing these interventions.

methodsWe conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with 18 researchers who had experience either designing (but not coding) digital behavioral interventions or running research studies with them. Participants were a convenience sample of users of the Computerized Intervention Authoring System platform, an existing no-code development platform for building digital intervention content, and were recruited through either direct email solicitation or snowball sampling. All interviews were conducted and recorded over videoconference between February and April 2020. Recordings from interviews were transcribed and thematically analyzed by multiple coders.

resultsInterviews were completed with 18 participants and lasted between 24 and 65 (mean 46.9, SD 11.3) minutes. Interviewees were predominantly female (17/18, 94%) and represented different job roles, ranging from researcher to project/study staff. Three key barriers in the development of digital behavior interventions were identified during interviews: lack of cross-disciplinary understanding; variability in recipients' technology access, infrastructure, and literacy; and the idea that evidence-based in-person interactions do not translate directly to digital interactions. Interviewees identified several key considerations that interventionists learned to prioritize, which have the potential to overcome these barriers and lead to successful interventions.

conclusionsBarriers in the development of digital behavioral interventions are often created by a lack of cross-disciplinary understanding, which can lead to difficulties conceptualizing interventions, unrealistic expectations in terms of cost, and confusion about the development process. Moreover, concerns about research study participant characteristics and access to technology, as well as the translation of in-person interventions to digital, are apparent. Appropriate training in how to work with software development teams may help future digital behavior intervention creators overcome these barriers and may lead to new, exciting innovations in this space.

Indexed as

Behavior TherapyResearch DesignFemaleHumansbrief interventionscomputer-assisted/methodscomputersdiagnosisimplementationmobile appsmobile phonemotivational interviewingqualitativescreeningsurveys and questionnairestherapy

Identifiers

PMID35353043
PMCPMC9008531
OpenAlexW4200361056

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.