Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35471414›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2022

Challenges in Participant Engagement and Retention Using Mobile Health Apps: Literature Review.

Saki Amagai, Sarah Pila, Aaron J Kaat, Cindy J Nowinski, Richard C Gershon

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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 206 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
206citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
84.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

206 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 322 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

146 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Saki AmagaiNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2825-4219
Sarah PilaNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8070-5929
Aaron J KaatNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8147-1899
Cindy J NowinskiNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5608-909X
Richard C GershonNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0085-0112
Northwestern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobile health (mHealth) apps are revolutionizing the way clinicians and researchers monitor and manage the health of their participants. However, many studies using mHealth apps are hampered by substantial participant dropout or attrition, which may impact the representativeness of the sample and the effectiveness of the study. Therefore, it is imperative for researchers to understand what makes participants stay with mHealth apps or studies using mHealth apps.

objectiveThis study aimed to review the current peer-reviewed research literature to identify the notable factors and strategies used in adult participant engagement and retention.

methodsWe conducted a systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases for mHealth studies that evaluated and assessed issues or strategies to improve the engagement and retention of adults from 2015 to 2020. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Notable themes were identified and narratively compared among different studies. A binomial regression model was generated to examine the factors affecting retention.

resultsOf the 389 identified studies, 62 (15.9%) were included in this review. Overall, most studies were partially successful in maintaining participant engagement. Factors related to particular elements of the app (eg, feedback, appropriate reminders, and in-app support from peers or coaches) and research strategies (eg, compensation and niche samples) that promote retention were identified. Factors that obstructed retention were also identified (eg, lack of support features, technical difficulties, and usefulness of the app). The regression model results showed that a participant is more likely to drop out than to be retained.

conclusionsRetaining participants is an omnipresent challenge in mHealth studies. The insights from this review can help inform future studies about the factors and strategies to improve participant retention.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsTelemedicineAdultHumansengagementmHealthmobile phoneretention

Identifiers

PMID35471414
PMCPMC9092233
OpenAlexW4224941735

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.