Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39226552›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Value of Engagement in Digital Health Technology Research: Evidence Across 6 Unique Cohort Studies.

Sarah M Goodday, Emma Karlin, Alexa Brooks, Carol Chapman, Christiana Harry, Nelly Lugo, Shannon Peabody, Shazia Rangwala, Ella Swanson, Jonell Tempero and 20 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
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.

Sarah M Goodday4YouandMe, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2159-1754
Emma Karlin4YouandMe, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5939-3078
Alexa Brooks4YouandMe, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1755-9006
Carol ChapmanCrohn's & Colitis Foundation, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0009-0008-4540-5243
Christiana Harry4YouandMe, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0009-0004-2227-1036
Nelly Lugo4YouandMe, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0009-0003-7245-4159
Shannon Peabody4YouandMe, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0009-0004-5283-9067
Shazia RangwalaSection of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Virginia Mason Francisan Health, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3099-9455
Ella Swanson4YouandMe, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0009-0008-9037-4538
Jonell Tempero4YouandMe, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0009-0002-6610-1763
Robin Yang4YouandMe, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9467-7044
Daniel R Karlin4YouandMe, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6038-6943
Ron RabinowiczDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3253-2047
David MalkinDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5752-9763
Simon TravisGasteroentology Unit, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2690-4361
Alissa WalshGasteroentology Unit, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8994-1186
Robert P HirtenThe Dr. Henry D. Janowitz Division of Gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7980-9368
Bruce E SandsThe Dr. Henry D. Janowitz Division of Gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5762-5042
Chetan BettegowdaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9991-7123
Matthias HoldhoffThe Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3285-3484
Jessica WollettDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID 0009-0005-5879-1970
Kelly SzajnaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID 0009-0002-8055-5374
Kallan DirmeyerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID 0009-0008-4069-4242
Anna DoddPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0649-0760
Shawn HutchinsonPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2435-7114
Stephanie RamotarPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7619-2684
Robert C GrantPrincess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9821-0377
Adrien BochEvidation Health Inc, Santa Mateo, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6535-4318
Mackenzie WildmanSage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5841-2214
Stephen H FriendDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0830-7600

Funding

Gates Foundation INV-016651
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWearable digital health technologies and mobile apps (personal digital health technologies [DHTs]) hold great promise for transforming health research and care. However, engagement in personal DHT research is poor.

objectiveThe objective of this paper is to describe how participant engagement techniques and different study designs affect participant adherence, retention, and overall engagement in research involving personal DHTs.

methodsQuantitative and qualitative analysis of engagement factors are reported across 6 unique personal DHT research studies that adopted aspects of a participant-centric design. Study populations included (1) frontline health care workers; (2) a conception, pregnant, and postpartum population; (3) individuals with Crohn disease; (4) individuals with pancreatic cancer; (5) individuals with central nervous system tumors; and (6) families with a Li-Fraumeni syndrome affected member. All included studies involved the use of a study smartphone app that collected both daily and intermittent passive and active tasks, as well as using multiple wearable devices including smartwatches, smart rings, and smart scales. All studies included a variety of participant-centric engagement strategies centered on working with participants as co-designers and regular check-in phone calls to provide support over study participation. Overall retention, probability of staying in the study, and median adherence to study activities are reported.

resultsThe median proportion of participants retained in the study across the 6 studies was 77.2% (IQR 72.6%-88%). The probability of staying in the study stayed above 80% for all studies during the first month of study participation and stayed above 50% for the entire active study period across all studies. Median adherence to study activities varied by study population. Severely ill cancer populations and postpartum mothers showed the lowest adherence to personal DHT research tasks, largely the result of physical, mental, and situational barriers. Except for the cancer and postpartum populations, median adherences for the Oura smart ring, Garmin, and Apple smartwatches were over 80% and 90%, respectively. Median adherence to the scheduled check-in calls was high across all but one cohort (50%, IQR 20%-75%: low-engagement cohort). Median adherence to study-related activities in this low-engagement cohort was lower than in all other included studies.

conclusionsParticipant-centric engagement strategies aid in participant retention and maintain good adherence in some populations. Primary barriers to engagement were participant burden (task fatigue and inconvenience), physical, mental, and situational barriers (unable to complete tasks), and low perceived benefit (lack of understanding of the value of personal DHTs). More population-specific tailoring of personal DHT designs is needed so that these new tools can be perceived as personally valuable to the end user.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsAdultBiomedical TechnologyCohort StudiesDigital HealthDigital TechnologyFemaleHumansMalePatient ParticipationPregnancyWearable Electronic DevicesadherenceappapplicationapplicationsappsDHTDHTsdigital healthdigital health technologiesdigital health technologyengagementmHealthmobile healthmobile phoneparticipatoryparticipatory medicineretentionwearablewearables

Identifiers

PMID39226552
PMCPMC11408887

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.