White Katie M, Williamson Charlotte, Bergou Nicol, Oetzmann Carolin, de Angel Valeria, Matcham Faith, Henderson Claire, Hotopf Matthew
Department of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
King's Centre for Military Health Research, King's College London, London, UK.
NPJ Digit Med. 2022 Jun 29;5(1):82. doi: 10.1038/s41746-022-00624-7.
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].
远程测量技术(RMTs)可以通过提供实时症状跟踪,彻底改变慢性健康状况的管理方式。然而,RMTs的前景依赖于用户参与度,目前该领域对其报道参差不齐。本综述旨在综合RMT文献,以确定参与度是如何定义、测量和报告的,以及在何种程度上进行这些操作,并为未来工作的标准化提出建议。2020年7月,检索了七个数据库(Embase、MEDLINE和PsycINFO(通过Ovid)、PubMed、IEEE Xplore、Web of Science和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库),以查找使用RMT应用程序对患有健康状况的成年人进行症状监测的论文,要求用户在研究期间至少跟踪三次。采用批判性解释性综合法对数据进行综合。共有76篇论文符合纳入标准。65%的论文未包括参与度的定义。35%的论文既包括参与度的定义,也包括参与度的测量。开发了四种综合结构来测量参与度:(i)对研究方案的参与度,(ii)客观的RMT参与度,(iii)主观的RMT参与度,以及(iv)客观和主观RMT参与度之间的相互作用。目前该领域受到不一致的测量方法以及对参与度定义缺乏考虑的阻碍。本文提出了在研究设计中实施参与度报告的流程,以及可用的定义和测量选项框架。未来的工作应将对RMTs的参与度视为与更广泛的电子健康文献不同的内容,并测量客观与主观的RMT参与度。注册情况:本综述已在PROSPERO上注册[CRD42020192652]。