Cited by 143Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Is there a trial bias impacting user engagement with unguided e-mental health interventions? A systematic comparison of published reports and real-world usage of the same programs

Baumel, Amit, Edan, Stav, Kane, John M·2019·Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Trial settings that include proactive recruitment, human contact, and assessment procedures may substantially impact the way users engage with unguided e-mental health programs and the generalizability of reported findings. This study examined the impact of trial setting on user behavior by directly comparing reported user engagement in trial-based research and objective measures of real-world usage of the same unguided mental health programs. The authors conducted a systematic search for papers reporting user engagement with off-the-shelf unguided e-mental health programs. Real-world usage was obtained from a panel that presents aggregated nonpersonal information on user engagement with digital programs across the world. A total of 13 papers yielding 14 comparable usage metrics met all inclusion criteria. In three papers reporting the use of programs by lay users without any proactive trial procedures, the ratios calculated by dividing the usage reported in the paper by the usage documented within the objective dataset were 0.84, 1.05, and 1.27—suggesting a sufficient criterion validity for our examination. In studies that proactively recruited users and included pre- to post-assessment procedures (11 comparisons), the median program usage rate reported was 4.06 times higher (IQR = 4.49) than the real-world usage of the same program. Severity of clinical symptoms, in-person versus remote assessment procedures, study design, and program cost had no impact on these differences. The results suggest that trial settings have a large impact on user engagement with unguided interventions and, therefore, on the generalizability of the findings to the real world.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/tbm/ibz147

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baumel, A., Edan, S., & Kane, J. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Haifa (IL)
  • Northwell Health (US)
Corresponding author
Baumel, Amit
Venue
Translational Behavioral Medicine
Published
2019-11-05
Volume
9
Issue
6
Pages
1020-1033
ISSN
  • 1613-9860 (ISSN-L)
  • 1869-6716
OpenAlex
W2989270862
Cited by
143
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10
FWCI
12.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Translational Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
trial bias, user engagement
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Mental Health, Program Development, Telemedicine

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