Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2026
A Stepped Care Approach to Promoting Engagement in a Digital Health Intervention: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital health interventions (DHIs) often struggle with participant engagement. A stepped care approach, starting with low-resource intensity strategies and escalating as needed, can optimize resource use. Yet its application and cost implications remain underexplored.
objectiveThis study uses data from the iSIPsmarter experimental arm of a 2-group randomized controlled trial targeting sugar-sweetened beverage consumption in rural Appalachia. This study examines the demand and implementation costs associated with iSIPsmarter's stepped care engagement approach and simulates how variations in monitoring efficiency, demand, and stepped care intensity influence resource use and implementation costs to inform future implementation.
methodsiSIPsmarter's stepped care process combined automated and human-supported components to enhance engagement across 6 web-based modules ("Cores") over 9 weeks. Participants who did not complete a Core received an automated email, followed by stepped care if still incomplete: a text (step 1, low-resource intensity) after 7 days and up to 3 telephone attempts (step 2, high-resource intensity) after another 7 days. Staff time was tracked to estimate implementation costs: monitoring averaged 3 minutes (US $1.68), texts 2.83 minutes (US $1.58), and calls 5.1 minutes (US $2.85). Simulations explored 18 scenarios varying monitoring efficiency (20%, 50%, and 80% of trial-observed monitoring time and costs), stepped care demand (20%, 50%, and 80% of participants needing stepped care), and intervention intensity (low vs high).
resultsAmong 126 participants, the mean stepped care contact was 1.2 (SD 1.3): 52 (41%) required none, 42 (33%) required 1 Core contact, 26 (21%) required 2, and 7 (6%) required 3. On average, participants completed 5.2 (SD 1.6) of 6 Cores. The mean stepped care implementation time per participant was 26.46 (SD 11.02) minutes, with a corresponding mean cost of US $14.80 (SD 6.16). Monitoring accounted for 78% of total cost (mean cost US $11.61, SD 2.37), with initial monitoring contributing 58% of total cost (mean cost US $8.51, SD 2.35). Simulations showed variation in time and cost based on monitoring efficiency. In low-demand, low-intensity scenarios, efficient monitoring required mean of 7.47 (95% CI 7.36-7.57) minutes and mean cost of US $4.18 (95% CI 4.12-4.24), while inefficient monitoring required a mean of 19.58 (95% CI 19.21-19.95) minutes and mean cost of US $10.95 (95% CI 10.74-11.16). In high-demand, high-intensity scenarios, efficient monitoring required a mean of 101.80 (95% CI 101.65-101.96) minutes and mean cost of US $56.92 (95% CI 56.84-57.01), while inefficient monitoring increased time to a mean of 146.32 (95% CI 145.92-146.71) minutes and mean cost of US $81.82 (95% CI 81.60-82.04).
conclusionsA stepped care approach can efficiently sustain engagement in DHIs by targeting support to higher-need participants. These findings offer actionable guidance for designing scalable, cost-effective interventions for real-world settings, as resource-efficient engagement strategies remain a persistent challenge for 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.