↓ Skip to main content

Understanding factors affecting patient and public engagement and recruitment to digital health interventions: a systematic review of qualitative studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 1,438)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
101 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
154 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
464 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Understanding factors affecting patient and public engagement and recruitment to digital health interventions: a systematic review of qualitative studies
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12911-016-0359-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Siobhan O’Connor, Peter Hanlon, Catherine A. O’Donnell, Sonia Garcia, Julie Glanville, Frances S. Mair

Abstract

Numerous types of digital health interventions (DHIs) are available to patients and the public but many factors affect their ability to engage and enrol in them. This systematic review aims to identify and synthesise the qualitative literature on barriers and facilitators to engagement and recruitment to DHIs to inform future implementation efforts. PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus and the ACM Digital Library were searched for English language qualitative studies from 2000 - 2015 that discussed factors affecting engagement and enrolment in a range of DHIs (e.g. 'telemedicine', 'mobile applications', 'personal health record', 'social networking'). Text mining and additional search strategies were used to identify 1,448 records. Two reviewers independently carried out paper screening, quality assessment, data extraction and analysis. Data was analysed using framework synthesis, informed by Normalization Process Theory, and Burden of Treatment Theory helped conceptualise the interpretation of results. Nineteen publications were included in the review. Four overarching themes that affect patient and public engagement and enrolment in DHIs emerged; 1) personal agency and motivation; 2) personal life and values; 3) the engagement and recruitment approach; and 4) the quality of the DHI. The review also summarises engagement and recruitment strategies used. A preliminary DIgital Health EnGagement MOdel (DIEGO) was developed to highlight the key processes involved. Existing knowledge gaps are identified and a number of recommendations made for future research. Study limitations include English language publications and exclusion of grey literature. This review summarises and highlights the complexity of digital health engagement and recruitment processes and outlines issues that need to be addressed before patients and the public commit to digital health and it can be implemented effectively. More work is needed to create successful engagement strategies and better quality digital solutions that are personalised where possible and to gain clinical accreditation and endorsement when appropriate. More investment is also needed to improve computer literacy and ensure technologies are accessible and affordable for those who wish to sign up to them. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42015029846.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 101 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 464 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Jamaica 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 460 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 86 19%
Student > Master 75 16%
Researcher 70 15%
Student > Bachelor 40 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 5%
Other 84 18%
Unknown 84 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 96 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 61 13%
Psychology 44 9%
Social Sciences 42 9%
Computer Science 39 8%
Other 75 16%
Unknown 107 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 24 August 2020.
All research outputs
#388,432
of 15,793,570 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#11
of 1,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,181
of 266,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,793,570 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,438 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 266,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them