Lisa B Hightow-Weidman1, Keith J Horvath2, Hyman Scott3,4, Jonathan Hill-Rorie5, Jose A Bauermeister6. 1. Institute of Global Health and Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 2. Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA. 3. University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 4. Department of Public Health, Bridge HIV, San Francisco, CA, USA. 5. Fenway Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 6. University of Pennsylvania, School of Nursing, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Youth participating in mobile health (mHealth) intervention trials often engage with the technologies [e.g., applications (app) or mobile-optimized websites] only partially, often prematurely discontinuing use altogether. Limited engagement can impact the interventions effect on behavior change and compromise researchers' ability to test and estimate the true efficacy of their interventions. While mHealth interventions have been shown to be feasible and acceptable to youth, across diverse health conditions, strategies to increase engagement have been less well studied. Specifically, within HIV prevention and care mHealth interventions, there is not consensus as to which components represent the "key ingredients" to support maximal engagement of youth. Further, successful intervention evaluation requires the ability to systematically track users' engagement with intervention components (i.e., paradata) to evaluate its effects on behavior change. METHODS: As part of the Adolescent Medicine Trials Network UNC/Emory Center for Innovative Technology (iTech) portfolio of HIV/AIDS Interventions, we present diverse strategies used across five mHealth protocols seeking to promote youth engagement, track and measure engagement through paradata, and incorporate these components into mHealth intervention evaluations. RESULTS: We describe the importance of defining and measuring engagement using case studies from iTech to illustrate how different research teams select mHealth features to promote youth engagement over time, taking into account features embedded in the technology design, key mechanisms of change and trial outcomes (e.g., HIV testing, pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake and adherence, HIV treatment adherence). Finally, we discuss how the research teams plan to evaluate engagement's role on their intervention's outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this synthesis, we discuss strategies to enhance mHealth engagement during intervention development and design, ensure its monitoring and reporting throughout the trial, and evaluate its impact on trial outcomes. 2021 mHealth. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Youth participating in mobile health (mHealth) intervention trials often engage with the technologies [e.g., applications (app) or mobile-optimized websites] only partially, often prematurely discontinuing use altogether. Limited engagement can impact the interventions effect on behavior change and compromise researchers' ability to test and estimate the true efficacy of their interventions. While mHealth interventions have been shown to be feasible and acceptable to youth, across diverse health conditions, strategies to increase engagement have been less well studied. Specifically, within HIV prevention and care mHealth interventions, there is not consensus as to which components represent the "key ingredients" to support maximal engagement of youth. Further, successful intervention evaluation requires the ability to systematically track users' engagement with intervention components (i.e., paradata) to evaluate its effects on behavior change. METHODS: As part of the Adolescent Medicine Trials Network UNC/Emory Center for Innovative Technology (iTech) portfolio of HIV/AIDS Interventions, we present diverse strategies used across five mHealth protocols seeking to promote youth engagement, track and measure engagement through paradata, and incorporate these components into mHealth intervention evaluations. RESULTS: We describe the importance of defining and measuring engagement using case studies from iTech to illustrate how different research teams select mHealth features to promote youth engagement over time, taking into account features embedded in the technology design, key mechanisms of change and trial outcomes (e.g., HIV testing, pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake and adherence, HIV treatment adherence). Finally, we discuss how the research teams plan to evaluate engagement's role on their intervention's outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this synthesis, we discuss strategies to enhance mHealth engagement during intervention development and design, ensure its monitoring and reporting throughout the trial, and evaluate its impact on trial outcomes. 2021 mHealth. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
HIV prevention and care; engagement; mHealth
Authors: Rik Crutzen; Jascha de Nooijer; Wendy Brouwer; Anke Oenema; Johannes Brug; Nanne K de Vries Journal: Health Promot Int Date: 2009-06-10 Impact factor: 2.483
Authors: Lucy Yardley; Bonnie J Spring; Heleen Riper; Leanne G Morrison; David H Crane; Kristina Curtis; Gina C Merchant; Felix Naughton; Ann Blandford Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 5.043