| Title |
Theoretical Perspectives of Adherence to Web-Based Interventions: a Scoping Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12529-017-9678-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cathal Ryan, Michael Bergin, John SG Wells |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this paper is to review the literature as this relates to theoretical perspectives of adherence to web-based interventions, drawing upon empirical evidence from the fields of psychology, business, information technology and health care. A scoping review of the literature utilising principles outlined by Arksey and O'Malley was undertaken. Several relevant theoretical perspectives have emerged, eight of which are charted and discussed in this review. These are the Internet Intervention Model, Persuasive Systems Design, the 'PERMA' framework, the Support Accountability Model, the Model of User Engagement, the Technology Acceptance Model, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of IT and the Conceptual Model of User Engagement. The findings of the review indicate that an interdisciplinary approach, incorporating a range of technological, environmental and individual factors, may be needed in order to comprehensively explain user adherence to web-based interventions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 3 | 21% |
| Sweden | 1 | 7% |
| Ireland | 1 | 7% |
| Indonesia | 1 | 7% |
| Comoros | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 57% |
| Scientists | 5 | 36% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 200 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 38 | 19% |
| Researcher | 25 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 33 | 17% |
| Unknown | 49 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 51 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 18 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 27 | 14% |
| Unknown | 57 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2017.
All research outputs
#4,416,913
of 23,859,750 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#242
of 944 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,901
of 317,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#6
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,859,750 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 944 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,623 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.