Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36148211›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in digital health2022

Participant retention in a fully remote trial of digital psychotherapy: Comparison of incentive types.

Isabell R Griffith Fillipo, Michael D Pullmann, Thomas D Hull, James Zech, Jerilyn Wu, Boris Litvin, Shiyu Chen, Patricia A Arean

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

8 authors.

Isabell R Griffith FillipoDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, CREATIV Lab, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Michael D PullmannDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, CREATIV Lab, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Thomas D HullResearch and Development, Talkspace, New York, NY, United States.
James ZechResearch and Development, Talkspace, New York, NY, United States.
Jerilyn WuResearch and Development, Talkspace, New York, NY, United States.
Boris LitvinResearch and Development, Talkspace, New York, NY, United States.
Shiyu ChenDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, CREATIV Lab, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Patricia A AreanDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, CREATIV Lab, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.

Funding

Message-based psychotherapy and digital treatment sequences for depressionR44MH124334 · NIMH · TALKSPACE LLC · PI PADMANABHAN, AARTHI · 2020 to 2023
$3.9M
NIMH NIH HHS R44 MH124334
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous studies have found that long term retention is very low in remote clinical studies (>4 weeks) and to date there is limited information on the best methods to ensure retention. The ability to retain participants in the completion of key assessments periods is critical to all clinical research, and to date little is known as to what methods are best to encourage participant retention. To study incentive-based retention methods we randomized 215 US adults (18+ years) who agreed to participate in a sequential, multiple assignment randomized trial to either high monetary incentive (HMI, $125 USD) and combined low monetary incentive ($75 USD) plus alternative incentive (LMAI). Participants were asked to complete daily and weekly surveys for a total of 12 weeks, which included a tailoring assessment around week 5 to determine who should be stepped up and rerandomized to one of two augmentation conditions. Key assessment points were weeks 5 and 12. There was no difference in participant retention at week 5 (tailoring event), with approximately 75% of the sample completing the week-5 survey. By week 10, the HMI condition retained approximately 70% of the sample, compared to 60% of the LMAI group. By week 12, all differences were attenuated. Differences in completed measures were not significant between groups. At the end of the study, participants were asked the impressions of the incentive condition they were assigned and asked for suggestions for improving engagement. There were no significant differences between conditions on ratings of the fairness of compensation, study satisfaction, or study burden, but study burden, intrinsic motivation and incentive fairness did influence participation. Men were also more likely to drop out of the study than women. Qualitative analysis from both groups found the following engagement suggestions: desire for feedback on survey responses and an interest in automated sharing of individual survey responses with study therapists to assist in treatment. Participants in the LMAI arm indicated that the alternative incentives were engaging and motivating. In sum, while we were able to increase engagement above what is typical for such study, more research is needed to truly improve long term retention in remote trials.

Indexed as

depressiondigital healthincentivesrandomized trialsretention

Identifiers

PMID36148211
PMCPMC9485564

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.