Cargando…

Engagement with mobile health interventions for depression: A systematic review()

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorders are a major public health problem, and many people face barriers to accessing evidence-based mental health treatment. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions may circumvent logistical barriers to in-person care (e.g., cost, transportation), however the symptoms of depr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Molloy, Anthony, Anderson, Page L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8479400/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34621626
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2021.100454
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Depressive disorders are a major public health problem, and many people face barriers to accessing evidence-based mental health treatment. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions may circumvent logistical barriers to in-person care (e.g., cost, transportation), however the symptoms of depression (low motivation, concentration difficulties) may make it difficult for people with the disorder to engage with mHealth. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to examine assessment and reporting of engagement in clinical trials of mHealth interventions for depression, including objective engagement (e.g., number of times program is used), subjective engagement (e.g., qualitative data on users' experiences), and associations between engagement and other clinically important variables (e.g., symptom improvement, participant characteristics). METHODS: Three electronic databases (PsycINFO, Web of Science, PubMed) were searched in February 2020 using search terms for mHealth and depression. Studies were included in the review if they tested a mHealth intervention designed for people with depressive disorders or elevated depression symptoms. RESULTS: Thirty studies met inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Most studies reported objective engagement (N = 23, 76.7%), approximately half reported subjective engagement (N = 16, 53.3%), and relatively few examined associations between engagement and clinical improvement, participant characteristics, or other clinically relevant variables (N = 13, 43.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Although most studies in this small but rapidly growing literature report at least one measure of engagement, there is substantial heterogeneity. Intentional, theory-driven, and consistent measurement of engagement with mHealth interventions for depression may advance the field's understanding of effective engagement to facilitate clinical improvement, identify dose-response relationships, and maximize generalizability for underserved populations.