Trial reportScientific reports2024
Engagement analysis of a persuasive-design-optimized eHealth intervention through machine learning.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Monitoring of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Users Through Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Electronic Patient-Reported Experience Measures: Multicenter Prospective Study on Feasibility, Safety, and Predictive Modeling of Digital Engagement.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The challenge of sustaining user engagement in eHealth interventions is a pressing issue with significant implications for the effectiveness of these digital health tools. This study investigates user engagement in a cognitive-behavioral therapy-based eHealth intervention for procrastination, using a dataset from a randomized controlled trial of 233 university students. Various machine learning models, including Decision Tree, Gradient Boosting, Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and Support Vector Machines, were employed to predict patterns of user engagement. The study adopted a two-phase analytical approach. In the first phase, all features of the dataset were included, revealing 'total_minutes'-the total time participants spent on the intervention and the eHealth platform-as the most significant predictor of engagement. This finding emphasizes the intuitive notion that early time spent on the platform and the intervention is a strong indicator of later user engagement. However, to gain a deeper understanding of engagement beyond this predominant metric, the second phase of the analysis excluded 'total_minutes'. This approach allowed for the exploration of the roles and interdependencies of other engagement indicators, such as 'number_intervention_answersheets'-the number of completed lessons, 'logins_first_4_weeks'-login frequency, and 'number_diary_answersheets'-the number of completed diaries. The results from this phase highlighted the multifaceted nature of engagement, showing that while 'total_minutes' is strongly correlated with engagement, indicating that more engaged participants tend to spend more time on the intervention, the comprehensive engagement profile also depends on additional aspects like lesson completions and frequency of platform interactions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.