ReviewFrontiers in digital health2025
Applying models of self-regulated learning to understand engagement with digital health interventions: a narrative review.
Review in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors Influencing Adherence to Digital Lifestyle Interventions for Adolescents: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Attrition.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Review
- A Program-Led Motivational App (MI-Coach: ED) for Eating Disorder Waitlists: Findings From a Feasibility and Acceptability Pilot Trial.The International journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
- Transition from In-Person to Online Boards-An Exploratory Pilot Study on Pituitary Tumor Board Meetings.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Examining the association between AI-enhanced education and medical students' self-directed learning using an integrated TAM-UTAUT2 model.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital health interventions (DHIs) are often burdened by poor user engagement and high drop-out rates, diminishing their potential public health impact. Identifying user-related factors predictive of engagement has therefore drawn significant research attention in recent years. Absent from this literature-yet implied by DHI design-is the notion that individuals who use DHIs have well-regulated learning capabilities that facilitate engagement with unguided intervention content. In this narrative review, we make the case that learning capacity can differ markedly across individuals, and that the requirements of self-guided learning for many DHIs do not guarantee that those who sign up for these interventions have good learning capabilities at the time of uptake. Drawing upon a rich body of theoretical work on self-regulated learning (SRL) in education research, we propose a user-as-learner perspective to delineate parameters and drivers of variable engagement with DHIs. Five prominent theoretical models of SRL were wholistically evaluated according to their relevance for digital health. Three key themes were drawn and applied to extend our current understanding of engagement with DHIs: (a) common drivers of engagement in SRL, (b) the temporal nature of engagement and its drivers, and (c) individuals may differ in learning capability. Integrating new perspectives from SRL models offered useful theoretical insights that could be leveraged to enhance engagement with intervention content throughout the DHI user journey. In an attempt to consolidate these differing-albeit complementary-perspectives, we develop an integrated model of engagement and provide an outline of future directions for research to extend the current understanding of engagement issues in self-guided DHIs.
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.