User journey method: a case study for improving digital intervention use measurement.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Lauri Lukka, Maria Vesterinen, Antti Salonen, Vilma-Reetta Bergman, Paulus Torkki, Satu Palva, J Matias Palva
{"title":"User journey method: a case study for improving digital intervention use measurement.","authors":"Lauri Lukka, Maria Vesterinen, Antti Salonen, Vilma-Reetta Bergman, Paulus Torkki, Satu Palva, J Matias Palva","doi":"10.1186/s12913-025-12641-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many digital mental health interventions meet low levels of use. However, current use measurement methods do not necessarily help identify which intervention elements are associated with dropout, despite this information potentially facilitating iterative intervention development. Here, we suggest improving the comprehensiveness of intervention use measurement with the user journey method, which evaluates every intervention element to identify intervention-specific use barriers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We applied user journey method in a clinical trial that investigated the efficacy of a novel game-based intervention, Meliora, for adult Major Depressive Disorder. We modelled the intervention for its four technological (Recruitment, Website, Questionnaires, Intervention Software) and two interpersonal elements (Assessment, Support). We then applied the user journey method to measure how many users proceeded from one element to the next combining social media analytics, website use data, signup data, clinical subject coordinator interview data, symptom questionnaire data, and behavioral intervention use data. These measurements were complemented with the qualitative analysis of the study discovery sources and email support contacts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Recruitment: The intervention recruitment reached at least 145,000 Finns, with social media, word-of-mouth, and news and web sources being the most effective recruitment channels. Website: The study website received 16,243 visitors, which led to 1,007 sign-ups.</p><p><strong>Assessment: </strong>895 participants were assessed and 735 were accepted. Intervention Software: 498 participants were assigned to the active intervention or comparator, of whom 457 used them at least once: on average, for 17.3 h (SD = 20.4 h) on 19.7 days (SD = 20.7 d) over a period of 38.9 days (SD = 31.2 d). The 28 intervention levels were associated with an average dropout rate of 2.6%, with two sections exhibiting an increase against this baseline. 150 participants met the minimum adherence goal of 24 h use. Questionnaires: 116 participants completed the post-intervention questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Support: </strong>313 signed-up participants contacted the researchers via email.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The user journey method allowed for the comprehensive evaluation of the six intervention elements, and enabled identifying use barriers expediting iterative intervention development and implementation.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05426265. Registered 28 June 2022, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05426265 .</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"25 1","pages":"479"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11959768/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-12641-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Many digital mental health interventions meet low levels of use. However, current use measurement methods do not necessarily help identify which intervention elements are associated with dropout, despite this information potentially facilitating iterative intervention development. Here, we suggest improving the comprehensiveness of intervention use measurement with the user journey method, which evaluates every intervention element to identify intervention-specific use barriers.

Methods: We applied user journey method in a clinical trial that investigated the efficacy of a novel game-based intervention, Meliora, for adult Major Depressive Disorder. We modelled the intervention for its four technological (Recruitment, Website, Questionnaires, Intervention Software) and two interpersonal elements (Assessment, Support). We then applied the user journey method to measure how many users proceeded from one element to the next combining social media analytics, website use data, signup data, clinical subject coordinator interview data, symptom questionnaire data, and behavioral intervention use data. These measurements were complemented with the qualitative analysis of the study discovery sources and email support contacts.

Results: Recruitment: The intervention recruitment reached at least 145,000 Finns, with social media, word-of-mouth, and news and web sources being the most effective recruitment channels. Website: The study website received 16,243 visitors, which led to 1,007 sign-ups.

Assessment: 895 participants were assessed and 735 were accepted. Intervention Software: 498 participants were assigned to the active intervention or comparator, of whom 457 used them at least once: on average, for 17.3 h (SD = 20.4 h) on 19.7 days (SD = 20.7 d) over a period of 38.9 days (SD = 31.2 d). The 28 intervention levels were associated with an average dropout rate of 2.6%, with two sections exhibiting an increase against this baseline. 150 participants met the minimum adherence goal of 24 h use. Questionnaires: 116 participants completed the post-intervention questionnaire.

Support: 313 signed-up participants contacted the researchers via email.

Conclusion: The user journey method allowed for the comprehensive evaluation of the six intervention elements, and enabled identifying use barriers expediting iterative intervention development and implementation.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05426265. Registered 28 June 2022, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05426265 .

背景:许多数字心理健康干预措施的使用率很低。然而,目前的使用测量方法并不一定有助于确定哪些干预因素与辍学有关,尽管这些信息可能有助于干预措施的迭代开发。在此,我们建议使用用户旅程法来提高干预措施使用测量的全面性,该方法可评估每个干预措施要素,以确定干预措施的具体使用障碍:方法:我们在一项临床试验中应用了用户历程法,该试验调查了基于游戏的新型干预措施 Meliora 对成人重度抑郁障碍的疗效。我们对干预的四个技术要素(招募、网站、问卷、干预软件)和两个人际要素(评估、支持)进行了建模。然后,我们结合社交媒体分析、网站使用数据、注册数据、临床科目协调员访谈数据、症状问卷数据和行为干预使用数据,采用用户旅程法来测量有多少用户从一个元素进入下一个元素。对研究发现来源和电子邮件支持联系人的定性分析对这些测量结果进行了补充:招募情况:干预招募覆盖了至少 145,000 名芬兰人,社交媒体、口碑、新闻和网络资源是最有效的招募渠道。网站:评估:对 895 名参与者进行了评估,其中 735 人被接受。干预软件:498 名参与者被分配到积极干预或比较者中,其中 457 人至少使用过一次:在 38.9 天(SD = 31.2 天)的时间里,平均在 19.7 天(SD = 20.7 天)使用 17.3 小时(SD = 20.4 小时)。28 个干预级别的平均辍学率为 2.6%,其中有两个级别的辍学率比基线有所上升。150 名参与者达到了 24 小时用药的最低坚持目标。问卷调查:116 名参与者完成了干预后调查问卷:支持:313 名注册参与者通过电子邮件与研究人员取得了联系:用户旅程法可对六个干预要素进行全面评估,并能识别使用障碍,加快干预的迭代开发和实施:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov,NCT05426265。注册日期:2022 年 6 月 28 日,https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05426265 。
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
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
×
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