Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35578099›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of behavioral medicine2023

Measuring Engagement with Mental Health and Behavior Change Interventions: an Integrative Review of Methods and Instruments.

Laura Esther Bijkerk, Anke Oenema, Nicole Geschwind, Mark Spigt

Full text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of behavioral medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Mapping the Process of Engagement With Digital Health Interventions: A Cross-Case Synthesis.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Laura Esther BijkerkDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. l.bijkerk@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8112-0239
Anke OenemaDepartment of Health Promotion, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Nicole GeschwindDepartment of Clinical Psychological Science, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Mark SpigtDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEngagement is a complex construct consisting of behavioral, cognitive, and affective dimensions, making engagement a difficult construct to measure. This integrative review aims to (1) present a multidisciplinary overview of measurement methods that are currently used to measure engagement with adult mental health and behavior change interventions, delivered in-person, blended, or digitally, and (2) provide a set of recommendations and considerations for researchers wishing to study engagement.

methodsWe used an integrative approach and identified original studies and reviews on engagement with mental health or behavior change interventions that were delivered in-person, digitally, or blended.

resultsForty articles were analyzed in this review. Common methods to assess engagement were through objective usage data, questionnaire-based data, and qualitative data, with objective usage data being used most frequently. Based on the synthesis of engagement measures, we advise researchers to (1) predefine the operationalization of engagement for their specific research context, (2) measure behavioral, cognitive, and affective dimensions of engagement in all cases, and (3) measure engagement over time.

conclusionsCurrent literature shows a bias towards behavioral measures of engagement in research, as most studies measured engagement exclusively through objective usage data, without including cognitive and affective measures of engagement. We hope that our recommendations will help to reduce this bias and to steer engagement research towards an integrated approach.

Indexed as

Mental HealthResearch DesignAdultHealth BehaviorHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesBehavior changeEngagementHealth behaviorInterventionMental healthPsychotherapy

Identifiers

PMID35578099
PMCPMC10036274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read1
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.