Nur Hani Zainal, Vivian Wang, Benjamin Garthwaite, Joshua E Curtiss
{"title":"哪些因素与数字心理健康干预(DMHIs)的参与有关?117项试验的荟萃分析。","authors":"Nur Hani Zainal, Vivian Wang, Benjamin Garthwaite, Joshua E Curtiss","doi":"10.1080/17437199.2025.2547610","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Identifying correlates of engagement with digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) can guide strategies to encourage therapy skill practice in targeted subgroups, supporting precision mental health. This three-level robust variance estimation meta-analysis examined correlates of DMHI engagement across 117 studies (1698 effect sizes; 279,791 participants), classifying engagement as initial uptake, study-specific usage, and intervention completion. Women engaged more than men in both unadjusted (Cohen's <i>d</i> = 0.34, 95% CI [0.06, 0.62]) and adjusted models (<i>r</i><sub>p</sub> = 0.05 [0.01, 0.09]). Other positive correlates were past mental health problems, guided versus self-guided modality delivery, therapeutic relationship, and positive expectancy. Meta-regressions indicated that completion was associated with older age, higher education, employment, and lower stress. Uptake was related to higher socioeconomic status, greater motivation, and lower symptom severity; usage was linked to human guidance and common mental disorders versus other conditions. Longer treatment duration amplified the effects of therapeutic relationship and guidance on engagement. Nearly half (48.7%) of studies had low risk of bias; minimal publication bias did not alter findings. Persuasive design strategies could enhance male engagement. Practitioners and policymakers should prioritize coaching that fosters productive relationships, pre-intervention materials to set realistic expectations, and methods to reduce the high risk of bias in future DMHI research.</p>","PeriodicalId":48034,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"1-21"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What factors are related to engagement with digital mental health interventions (DMHIs)? A meta-analysis of 117 trials.\",\"authors\":\"Nur Hani Zainal, Vivian Wang, Benjamin Garthwaite, Joshua E Curtiss\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17437199.2025.2547610\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Identifying correlates of engagement with digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) can guide strategies to encourage therapy skill practice in targeted subgroups, supporting precision mental health. This three-level robust variance estimation meta-analysis examined correlates of DMHI engagement across 117 studies (1698 effect sizes; 279,791 participants), classifying engagement as initial uptake, study-specific usage, and intervention completion. Women engaged more than men in both unadjusted (Cohen's <i>d</i> = 0.34, 95% CI [0.06, 0.62]) and adjusted models (<i>r</i><sub>p</sub> = 0.05 [0.01, 0.09]). Other positive correlates were past mental health problems, guided versus self-guided modality delivery, therapeutic relationship, and positive expectancy. Meta-regressions indicated that completion was associated with older age, higher education, employment, and lower stress. Uptake was related to higher socioeconomic status, greater motivation, and lower symptom severity; usage was linked to human guidance and common mental disorders versus other conditions. Longer treatment duration amplified the effects of therapeutic relationship and guidance on engagement. Nearly half (48.7%) of studies had low risk of bias; minimal publication bias did not alter findings. Persuasive design strategies could enhance male engagement. Practitioners and policymakers should prioritize coaching that fosters productive relationships, pre-intervention materials to set realistic expectations, and methods to reduce the high risk of bias in future DMHI research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48034,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-21\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2025.2547610\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2025.2547610","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
确定参与数字心理健康干预(DMHIs)的相关性可以指导策略,以鼓励目标亚群体的治疗技能实践,从而支持精确的心理健康。这一三水平稳健方差估计荟萃分析检查了117项研究(1698个效应大小;279791名参与者)中DMHI参与的相关性,并将参与分为初始吸收、研究特定使用和干预完成。在未调整模型(Cohen’s d = 0.34, 95% CI[0.06, 0.62])和调整模型(rp = 0.05[0.01, 0.09])中,女性的参与度都高于男性。其他正相关因素包括过去的心理健康问题、引导与自我引导的方式传递、治疗关系和积极期望。元回归表明,完成学业与年龄、高等教育、就业和较低的压力有关。摄取与较高的社会经济地位、较高的动机和较低的症状严重程度有关;使用与人类指导和常见精神障碍与其他条件有关。较长的治疗持续时间放大了治疗关系和指导对参与的影响。近一半(48.7%)的研究偏倚风险较低;最小的发表偏倚没有改变研究结果。有说服力的设计策略可以提高男性的参与度。从业者和政策制定者应该优先考虑培养富有成效的关系的指导,制定现实期望的干预前材料,以及在未来的DMHI研究中降低高偏见风险的方法。
What factors are related to engagement with digital mental health interventions (DMHIs)? A meta-analysis of 117 trials.
Identifying correlates of engagement with digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) can guide strategies to encourage therapy skill practice in targeted subgroups, supporting precision mental health. This three-level robust variance estimation meta-analysis examined correlates of DMHI engagement across 117 studies (1698 effect sizes; 279,791 participants), classifying engagement as initial uptake, study-specific usage, and intervention completion. Women engaged more than men in both unadjusted (Cohen's d = 0.34, 95% CI [0.06, 0.62]) and adjusted models (rp = 0.05 [0.01, 0.09]). Other positive correlates were past mental health problems, guided versus self-guided modality delivery, therapeutic relationship, and positive expectancy. Meta-regressions indicated that completion was associated with older age, higher education, employment, and lower stress. Uptake was related to higher socioeconomic status, greater motivation, and lower symptom severity; usage was linked to human guidance and common mental disorders versus other conditions. Longer treatment duration amplified the effects of therapeutic relationship and guidance on engagement. Nearly half (48.7%) of studies had low risk of bias; minimal publication bias did not alter findings. Persuasive design strategies could enhance male engagement. Practitioners and policymakers should prioritize coaching that fosters productive relationships, pre-intervention materials to set realistic expectations, and methods to reduce the high risk of bias in future DMHI research.
期刊介绍:
The publication of Health Psychology Review (HPR) marks a significant milestone in the field of health psychology, as it is the first review journal dedicated to this important and rapidly growing discipline. Edited by a highly respected team, HPR provides a critical platform for the review, development of theories, and conceptual advancements in health psychology. This prestigious international forum not only contributes to the progress of health psychology but also fosters its connection with the broader field of psychology and other related academic and professional domains. With its vital insights, HPR is a must-read for those involved in the study, teaching, and practice of health psychology, behavioral medicine, and related areas.