The conceptualisation and measurement of engagement in digital health

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Madison Milne-Ives , Sophie Homer , Jackie Andrade , Edward Meinert
{"title":"The conceptualisation and measurement of engagement in digital health","authors":"Madison Milne-Ives ,&nbsp;Sophie Homer ,&nbsp;Jackie Andrade ,&nbsp;Edward Meinert","doi":"10.1016/j.invent.2024.100735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Digital tools are an increasingly important component of healthcare, but their potential impact is commonly limited by a lack of user engagement. Digital health evaluations of engagement are often restricted to system usage metrics, which cannot capture a full understanding of how and why users engage with an intervention. This study aimed to examine how theory-based, multifaceted measures of engagement with digital health interventions capture different components of engagement (affective, cognitive, behavioural, micro, and macro) and to consider areas that are unclear or missing in their measurement. We identified and compared two recently developed measures that met these criteria (the Digital Behaviour Change Intervention Engagement Scale and the TWente Engagement with Ehealth Technologies Scale). Despite having similar theoretical bases and being relatively strongly correlated, there are key differences in how these scales aim to capture engagement. We discuss the implications of our analysis for how affective, cognitive, and behavioural components of engagement can be conceptualised and whether there is value in distinguishing between them. We conclude with recommendations for the circumstances in which each scale may be most useful and for how future measure development could supplement existing scales.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48615,"journal":{"name":"Internet Interventions-The Application of Information Technology in Mental and Behavioural Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214782924000289/pdfft?md5=ef290c7b08d7eaf72d6e2c38fb7583f3&pid=1-s2.0-S2214782924000289-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internet Interventions-The Application of Information Technology in Mental and Behavioural Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214782924000289","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Digital tools are an increasingly important component of healthcare, but their potential impact is commonly limited by a lack of user engagement. Digital health evaluations of engagement are often restricted to system usage metrics, which cannot capture a full understanding of how and why users engage with an intervention. This study aimed to examine how theory-based, multifaceted measures of engagement with digital health interventions capture different components of engagement (affective, cognitive, behavioural, micro, and macro) and to consider areas that are unclear or missing in their measurement. We identified and compared two recently developed measures that met these criteria (the Digital Behaviour Change Intervention Engagement Scale and the TWente Engagement with Ehealth Technologies Scale). Despite having similar theoretical bases and being relatively strongly correlated, there are key differences in how these scales aim to capture engagement. We discuss the implications of our analysis for how affective, cognitive, and behavioural components of engagement can be conceptualised and whether there is value in distinguishing between them. We conclude with recommendations for the circumstances in which each scale may be most useful and for how future measure development could supplement existing scales.

数字医疗参与度的概念化和测量
数字工具是医疗保健领域日益重要的组成部分,但由于缺乏用户参与,其潜在影响通常受到限制。数字医疗的参与度评估往往局限于系统使用指标,无法全面了解用户如何以及为何参与干预。本研究旨在考察基于理论的、多方面的数字健康干预参与度测量方法如何捕捉参与度的不同组成部分(情感、认知、行为、微观和宏观),并考虑其测量中不明确或缺失的领域。我们确定并比较了最近开发的两个符合这些标准的测量方法(数字行为改变干预参与量表和 TWente 参与电子健康技术量表)。尽管这两个量表具有相似的理论基础和相对较强的相关性,但在如何捕捉参与度方面却存在着关键性的差异。我们将讨论我们的分析对如何将参与的情感、认知和行为要素概念化的影响,以及区分这些要素是否有价值。最后,我们就每种量表在哪些情况下可能最有用以及未来的测量开发如何对现有量表进行补充提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
9.30%
发文量
94
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Official Journal of the European Society for Research on Internet Interventions (ESRII) and the International Society for Research on Internet Interventions (ISRII). The aim of Internet Interventions is to publish scientific, peer-reviewed, high-impact research on Internet interventions and related areas. Internet Interventions welcomes papers on the following subjects: • Intervention studies targeting the promotion of mental health and featuring the Internet and/or technologies using the Internet as an underlying technology, e.g. computers, smartphone devices, tablets, sensors • Implementation and dissemination of Internet interventions • Integration of Internet interventions into existing systems of care • Descriptions of development and deployment infrastructures • Internet intervention methodology and theory papers • Internet-based epidemiology • Descriptions of new Internet-based technologies and experiments with clinical applications • Economics of internet interventions (cost-effectiveness) • Health care policy and Internet interventions • The role of culture in Internet intervention • Internet psychometrics • Ethical issues pertaining to Internet interventions and measurements • Human-computer interaction and usability research with clinical implications • Systematic reviews and meta-analysis on Internet interventions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信