Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Jun 29;5(1):82.
doi: 10.1038/s41746-022-00624-7.

A systematic review of engagement reporting in remote measurement studies for health symptom tracking

Katie M White  1 , Charlotte Williamson  2 , Nicol Bergou  3 , Carolin Oetzmann  4 , Valeria de Angel  4 , Faith Matcham  4 , Claire Henderson  5   6 , Matthew Hotopf  4
Affiliations
Review

A systematic review of engagement reporting in remote measurement studies for health symptom tracking

Katie M White et al. NPJ Digit Med. .

Abstract

Remote Measurement Technologies (RMTs) could revolutionise management of chronic health conditions by providing real-time symptom tracking. However, the promise of RMTs relies on user engagement, which at present is variably reported in the field. This review aimed to synthesise the RMT literature to identify how and to what extent engagement is defined, measured, and reported, and to present recommendations for the standardisation of future work. Seven databases (Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO (via Ovid), PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched in July 2020 for papers using RMT apps for symptom monitoring in adults with a health condition, prompting users to track at least three times during the study period. Data were synthesised using critical interpretive synthesis. A total of 76 papers met the inclusion criteria. Sixty five percent of papers did not include a definition of engagement. Thirty five percent included both a definition and measurement of engagement. Four synthetic constructs were developed for measuring engagement: (i) engagement with the research protocol, (ii) objective RMT engagement, (iii) subjective RMT engagement, and (iv) interactions between objective and subjective RMT engagement. The field is currently impeded by incoherent measures and a lack of consideration for engagement definitions. A process for implementing the reporting of engagement in study design is presented, alongside a framework for definition and measurement options available. Future work should consider engagement with RMTs as distinct from the wider eHealth literature, and measure objective versus subjective RMT engagement.Registration: This review has been registered on PROSPERO [CRD42020192652].

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

M.H. is principal investigator of the RADAR-CNS programme, a precompetitive public–private partnership funded by the Innovative Medicines Initiative and European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. The programme receives support from Janssen, Biogen, MSD, UCB and Lundbeck. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. PRISMA flow diagram of included studies.
Seven databases were searched to ensure relevant fields were covered. The flow diagram lists reasons for exclusion of articles from the final sample of n = 76.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. An integrative framework for the measurement of engagement with RMTs, based on the four synthetic constructs found.
The main engagement themes cover ‘engagement with the research protocol’ and ‘engagement with RMTs’. Further engagement sub-themes correspond to ways in which engagement can be conceptualised within each of the two main themes. The third section outlines several available options for measurement within each sub-theme.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. Implementing the reporting of engagement into the study design process for RMT studies.
Authors are encouraged to conceptualise and define key measurement strategies for engagement during the study development phase.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Matcham F, et al. Remote assessment of disease and relapse in major depressive disorder (RADAR-MDD): A multi-centre prospective cohort study protocol 11 Medical and Health Sciences 1103 Clinical Sciences 11 Medical and Health Sciences 1117 Public Health and Health Services. BMC Psychiatry. 2019;19:1–11. doi: 10.1186/s12888-019-2049-z. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Naslund JA, Marsch LA, McHugo GJ, Bartels SJ. Emerging mHealth and eHealth interventions for serious mental illness: a review of the literature. J. Ment. Health. 2015;24:321–332. doi: 10.3109/09638237.2015.1019054. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Yuezhou, et al. Predicting depressive symptom severity through individuals’ nearby bluetooth device count data collected by mobile phones: preliminary longitudinal study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth9, e29840 https://mhealth.jmir.org/2021/7/e29840 (2021). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zhang Y, et al. Relationship Between Major Depression Symptom Severity And Sleep Collected Using A Wristband Wearable Device: Multicenter Longitudinal Observational Study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021;9:e24604. doi: 10.2196/24604. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sun S, et al. Using smartphones and wearable devices to monitor behavioral changes during COVID-19. J. Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e19992. doi: 10.2196/19992. - DOI - PMC - PubMed