Cited by 28Digital Mental Health InterventionsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Predictors of dropout in a digital intervention for the prevention and treatment of depression in patients with chronic Back pain: secondary analysis of two randomized controlled trials

Open access
Moshe, Isaac, Terhorst, Yannik, Paganini, Sarah, Schlicker, Sandra, Pulkki-Råback, Laura, Baumeister, Harald, Sander, Lasse B, Ebert, David Daniel·2022·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common comorbid condition in individuals with chronic back pain (CBP), leading to poorer treatment outcomes and increased medical complications. Digital interventions have demonstrated efficacy in the prevention and treatment of depression; however, high dropout rates are a major challenge, particularly in clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify the predictors of dropout in a digital intervention for the treatment and prevention of depression in patients with comorbid CBP. We assessed which participant characteristics may be associated with dropout and whether intervention usage data could help improve the identification of individuals at risk of dropout early on in treatment. METHODS: Data were collected from 2 large-scale randomized controlled trials in which 253 patients with a diagnosis of CBP and major depressive disorder or subclinical depressive symptoms received a digital intervention for depression. In the first analysis, participants' baseline characteristics were examined as potential predictors of dropout. In the second analysis, we assessed the extent to which dropout could be predicted from a combination of participants' baseline characteristics and intervention usage variables following the completion of the first module. Dropout was defined as completing <6 modules. Analyses were conducted using logistic regression. RESULTS: : OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.13-2.23), medium versus high social support (OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.25-7.33), and a higher number of days to module completion (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.08) predicted a higher risk of dropout, whereas a self-reported negative event in the previous week was associated with a lower risk of dropout (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08-0.69). A model that combined baseline characteristics and intervention usage data generated the most accurate predictions (area under the receiver operating curve [AUC]=0.72) and was significantly more accurate than models based on baseline characteristics only (AUC=0.70) or intervention usage data only (AUC=0.61). We found no significant influence of pain, disability, or depression severity on dropout. CONCLUSIONS: Dropout can be predicted by participant baseline variables, and the inclusion of intervention usage variables may improve the prediction of dropout early on in treatment. Being able to identify individuals at high risk of dropout from digital health interventions could provide intervention developers and supporting clinicians with the ability to intervene early and prevent dropout from occurring.

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 · 10.2196/38261

Cites

73 of 73 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?

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 74 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moshe, I., Terhorst, Y., Paganini, S., Schlicker, S., Pulkki-Råback, L., Baumeister, H., Sander, L. B., & Ebert, D. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • Universität Ulm (DE)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
Corresponding author
Moshe, Isaac
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2022-08-30
Volume
24
Issue
8
Pages
e38261
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4293575236
Cited by
28
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2
FWCI
3.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion)
  • mediaTUM (Technical University of Munich) (submittedVersion)
  • mediaTUM (Technical University of Munich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Suomen Kulttuurirahasto
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
student dropout prediction, digital interventions, depression, chronic back pain, major depressive disorder, subclinical depressive symptoms, social support, causes of dropout, digital mental health, comorbidities
MeSH terms
Back Pain, Child, Preschool, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome

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