Author:
Boucher Eliane M.,Raiker Joseph S.
Abstract
Abstract
Background
While many digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) have been shown to be effective, such interventions also have been criticized for poor engagement and retention rates. However, several questions remain about how users engage with DMHIs, how to define engagement, and what factors might help improve DMHI engagement.
Main abstract
In this narrative review, we show that although DMHIs are criticized for poor engagement, research suggests engagement rates are quite variable across studies and DMHIs. In some instances, engagement rates are high, even in real-world settings where there is evidence of a subset of users who could be considered ‘superusers’. We then review research on the barriers and facilitators to DMHI engagement, highlighting that qualitative research of users’ perceptions does not always align with quantitative research assessing relationships between these barriers/facilitators and actual engagement with DMHIs. We also introduce several potential issues in conceptualizations of DMHI engagement that may explain the mixed findings, including inconsistent definitions of engagement and assumptions about linear relationships between engagement and outcomes. Finally, we outline evidence suggesting that engagement with DMHIs is comparable to mobile application use broadly as well as engagement with more traditional forms of mental health care (i.e., pharmacological, psychotherapy).
Conclusions
In order to increase the number of people who can benefit from DMHIs, additional research on engagement and retention is necessary. Importantly, we believe it is critical that this research move away from several existing misconceptions about DMHI engagement. We make three recommendations for research on DMHI engagement that we believe, if addressed, are likely to substantially improve the impact of DMHIs: (1) the need to adopt a clearly defined, common definition of engagement, (2) the importance of exploring patterns of optimal engagement rather than taking a ‘one size fits all’ approach, and (3) the importance of defining success within DMHIs based on outcomes rather than the frequency or duration of a user’s engagement with that DMHI.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference146 articles.
1. Eysenbach G. The law of attrition. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7(1):e402.
2. Torous J, Nicholas J, Larsen ME, Firth J, Christensen H. Clinical review of user engagement with mental health smartphone apps: evidence, theory and improvements. BMJ Ment Health. 2018;21(3):116–9.
3. Baumel A, Muench F, Edan S, Kane JM. Objective user engagement with mental health apps: systematic search and panel-based usage analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(9):e14567.
4. Baños RM, Herrero R, Vara MD. What is the current and future status of digital mental health interventions? The Spanish Journal of Psychology. 2022;25:e5.
5. Kaveladze BT, Wasil AR, Bunyi JB, Ramirez V, Schueller SM. User experience, engagement, and popularity in mental health apps: secondary analysis of app analytics and expert app reviews. JMIR Hum Factors. 2022;9(1):e30766.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献