Cited by 23Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Estimating the impact of engagement with digital health interventions on patient outcomes in randomized trials

Open access
Nelson, Lyndsay A, Spieker, Andrew J, Mayberry, Lindsay S, McNaughton, Candace, Greevy, Robert A·2021·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

Objective: Guidance is needed on studying engagement and treatment effects in digital health interventions, including levels required for benefit. We evaluated multiple analytic approaches for understanding the association between engagement and clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: We defined engagement as intervention participants’ response rate to interactive text messages, and considered moderation, standard regression, mediation, and a modified instrumental variable (IV) analysis to investigate the relationship between engagement and clinical outcomes. We applied each approach to two randomized controlled trials featuring text message content in the intervention: REACH (Rapid Encouragement/Education and Communications for Health), which targeted diabetes, and VERB (Vanderbilt Emergency Room Bundle), which targeted hypertension. Results: In REACH, the treatment effect on hemoglobin A1c was estimated to be −0.73% (95% CI: [−1.29, −0.21]; P = 0.008), and in VERB, the treatment effect on systolic blood pressure was estimated to be −10.1 mmHg (95% CI: [−17.7, −2.8]; P = 0.007). Only the IV analyses suggested an effect of engagement on outcomes; the difference in treatment effects between engagers and non-engagers was −0.29% to −0.51% in the REACH study and −1.08 to −3.25 mmHg in the VERB study. Discussion: Standard regression and mediation have less power than a modified IV analysis, but the IV approach requires specification of assumptions. This is the first review of the strengths and limitations of various approaches to evaluating the impact of engagement on outcomes. Conclusions: Understanding the role of engagement in digital health interventions can help reveal when and how these interventions achieve desired outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jamia/ocab254

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This finding is consistent with previous research highlighting the role of continuous engagement in the effectiveness of digital health interventions.

    “This finding is consistent with previous research that has highlighted the role of continuous engagement in the effectiveness of digital health interventions25–27.”

    From Impact of digital health interventions on glycemic control and weight management. (2025) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Background and Significance section says users must be willing to engage for digital health interventions to be effective. It does not establish that engagement must be continuous: the Results found insufficient evidence of an association between text-message response rate and outcomes in either trial, and the paper emphasizes identifying how much engagement is needed rather than assuming more is better. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [33]33. Imbens GW, Rubin DB. Causal Inference in Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2015. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nelson, L. A., Spieker, A. J., Mayberry, L. S., McNaughton, C., & Greevy, R. A.
Affiliations
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System (US)
Corresponding author
Nelson, Lyndsay A
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2021-11-22
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
128-136
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W4200357219
Cited by
23
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
FWCI
3.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01-DK100694)
  • Center for Diabetes Translation Research Pilot & Feasibility Award (P30-DK092986)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K12-HL137943)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
digital health interventions, patient engagement, text messaging, instrumental variables, mediation analysis, moderation, diabetes mellitus, HbA1c, hypertension, systolic blood pressure, REACH study, treatment effect estimation
MeSH terms
Blood Pressure, Diabetes Mellitus, Humans, Hypertension, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Text Messaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review