Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36806317›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2023

Long-term participant retention and engagement patterns in an app and wearable-based multinational remote digital depression study.

Yuezhou Zhang, Abhishek Pratap, Amos A Folarin, Shaoxiong Sun, Nicholas Cummins, Faith Matcham, Srinivasan Vairavan, Judith Dineley, Yatharth Ranjan, Zulqarnain Rashid and 20 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Understanding sleep and smartphone use in diverse adolescents through passive digital monitoring.Journal of research on adolescence : the official journal of the Society for Research on Adolescence · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

30 authors.

Yuezhou Zhang *Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4817-3835
Abhishek Pratap *Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. abhishek.vit@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5289-6932
Amos A FolarinInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0333-1927
Shaoxiong SunInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3652-5266
Nicholas CumminsInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1178-917X
Faith MatchamInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Srinivasan VairavanJanssen Research and Development, LLC, Titusville, NJ, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7975-8436
Judith DineleyInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Yatharth RanjanInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3079-3120
Zulqarnain RashidInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Pauline CondeInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Callum StewartInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Katie M WhiteInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Carolin OetzmannInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1480-917X
Alina IvanInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Femke LamersDepartment of Psychiatry and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sara SiddiParc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu, Fundació Sant Joan de Déu, CIBERSAM, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Carla Hernández RamblaParc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu, Fundació Sant Joan de Déu, CIBERSAM, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4491-3018
Sara SimblettInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8075-8238
Raluca NicaRADAR-CNS Patient Advisory Board, King's College London, London, UK.
David C MohrCenter for Behavioral Intervention Technologies, Department of Preventative Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5443-7596
Inez Myin-GermeysKatholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Til WykesInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5881-8003
Josep Maria HaroParc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu, Fundació Sant Joan de Déu, CIBERSAM, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Brenda W J H PenninxDepartment of Psychiatry and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Peter AnnasH. Lundbeck A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0576-765X
Vaibhav A NarayanDavos Alzheimer's Collaborative, Geneva, Switzerland.
Matthew HotopfInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Richard J B DobsonInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. richard.j.dobson@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4224-9245
RADAR-CNS consortium

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_17214Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent growth in digital technologies has enabled the recruitment and monitoring of large and diverse populations in remote health studies. However, the generalizability of inference drawn from remotely collected health data could be severely impacted by uneven participant engagement and attrition over the course of the study. We report findings on long-term participant retention and engagement patterns in a large multinational observational digital study for depression containing active (surveys) and passive sensor data collected via Android smartphones, and Fitbit devices from 614 participants for up to 2 years. Majority of participants (67.6%) continued to remain engaged in the study after 43 weeks. Unsupervised clustering of participants' study apps and Fitbit usage data showed 3 distinct engagement subgroups for each data stream. We found: (i) the least engaged group had the highest depression severity (4 PHQ8 points higher) across all data streams; (ii) the least engaged group (completed 4 bi-weekly surveys) took significantly longer to respond to survey notifications (3.8 h more) and were 5 years younger compared to the most engaged group (completed 20 bi-weekly surveys); and (iii) a considerable proportion (44.6%) of the participants who stopped completing surveys after 8 weeks continued to share passive Fitbit data for significantly longer (average 42 weeks). Additionally, multivariate survival models showed participants' age, ownership and brand of smartphones, and recruitment sites to be associated with retention in the study. Together these findings could inform the design of future digital health studies to enable equitable and balanced data collection from diverse populations.

Identifiers

PMID36806317
PMCPMC9938183

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.