Laura Esther Bijkerk1, Anke Oenema2, Nicole Geschwind3, Mark Spigt4,5. 1. Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. l.bijkerk@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 2. Department of Health Promotion, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Clinical Psychological Science, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 5. General Practice Research Unit, Department of Community Medicine, UiT the Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Engagement is a complex construct consisting of behavioral, cognitive, and affective dimensions, making engagement a difficult construct to measure. This integrative review aims to (1) present a multidisciplinary overview of measurement methods that are currently used to measure engagement with adult mental health and behavior change interventions, delivered in-person, blended, or digitally, and (2) provide a set of recommendations and considerations for researchers wishing to study engagement. METHODS: We used an integrative approach and identified original studies and reviews on engagement with mental health or behavior change interventions that were delivered in-person, digitally, or blended. RESULTS: Forty articles were analyzed in this review. Common methods to assess engagement were through objective usage data, questionnaire-based data, and qualitative data, with objective usage data being used most frequently. Based on the synthesis of engagement measures, we advise researchers to (1) predefine the operationalization of engagement for their specific research context, (2) measure behavioral, cognitive, and affective dimensions of engagement in all cases, and (3) measure engagement over time. CONCLUSIONS: Current literature shows a bias towards behavioral measures of engagement in research, as most studies measured engagement exclusively through objective usage data, without including cognitive and affective measures of engagement. We hope that our recommendations will help to reduce this bias and to steer engagement research towards an integrated approach.
BACKGROUND: Engagement is a complex construct consisting of behavioral, cognitive, and affective dimensions, making engagement a difficult construct to measure. This integrative review aims to (1) present a multidisciplinary overview of measurement methods that are currently used to measure engagement with adult mental health and behavior change interventions, delivered in-person, blended, or digitally, and (2) provide a set of recommendations and considerations for researchers wishing to study engagement. METHODS: We used an integrative approach and identified original studies and reviews on engagement with mental health or behavior change interventions that were delivered in-person, digitally, or blended. RESULTS: Forty articles were analyzed in this review. Common methods to assess engagement were through objective usage data, questionnaire-based data, and qualitative data, with objective usage data being used most frequently. Based on the synthesis of engagement measures, we advise researchers to (1) predefine the operationalization of engagement for their specific research context, (2) measure behavioral, cognitive, and affective dimensions of engagement in all cases, and (3) measure engagement over time. CONCLUSIONS: Current literature shows a bias towards behavioral measures of engagement in research, as most studies measured engagement exclusively through objective usage data, without including cognitive and affective measures of engagement. We hope that our recommendations will help to reduce this bias and to steer engagement research towards an integrated approach.
Authors: Natalie E Hundt; Amber B Amspoker; Cynthia Kraus-Schuman; Jeffrey A Cully; Howard Rhoades; Mark E Kunik; Melinda A Stanley Journal: J Anxiety Disord Date: 2014-10-05
Authors: Camille E Short; Ann DeSmet; Catherine Woods; Susan L Williams; Carol Maher; Anouk Middelweerd; Andre Matthias Müller; Petra A Wark; Corneel Vandelanotte; Louise Poppe; Melanie D Hingle; Rik Crutzen Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-11-16 Impact factor: 5.428
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
Authors: Sarah L Krein; Reema Kadri; Maria Hughes; Eve A Kerr; John D Piette; Rob Holleman; Hyungjin Myra Kim; Caroline R Richardson Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-08-19 Impact factor: 5.428