Cited by 273Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

The Effectiveness of Prompts to Promote Engagement With Digital Interventions: A Systematic Review

Open access
Alkhaldi, Ghadah, Hamilton, Fiona L, Lau, Rosa, Webster, Rosie, Michie, Susan, Murray, Elizabeth·2016·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Digital interventions have been effective in improving numerous health outcomes and health behaviors; furthermore, they are increasingly being used in different health care areas, including self-management of long-term conditions, mental health, and health promotion. The full potential of digital interventions is hindered by a lack of user engagement. There is an urgent need to develop effective strategies that can promote users' engagement with digital interventions. One potential method is the use of technology-based reminders or prompts. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of technology-based strategies for promoting engagement with digital interventions. METHODS: Cochrane Collaboration guidelines on systematic review methodology were followed. The search strategy was executed across 7 electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). Databases were searched from inception to September 13, 2013, with no language or publication type restrictions, using three concepts: randomized controlled trials, digital interventions, and engagement. Gray literature and reference lists of included studies were also searched. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by 2 authors, then the full texts of potentially eligible papers were obtained and double-screened. Data from eligible papers were extracted by one author and checked for accuracy by another author. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Narrative synthesis was performed on all included studies and, where appropriate, data were pooled using meta-analysis. All findings were reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies were included in the review with 8774 participants. Of the 14 studies, 9 had sufficient data to be included in the meta-analyses. The meta-analyses suggested that technology-based strategies can potentially promote engagement compared to no strategy for dichotomous outcomes (relative risk [RR] 1.27, 95% CI 1.01-1.60, I(2)=71%), but due to considerable heterogeneity and the small sample sizes in most studies, this result should be treated with caution. No studies reported adverse or economic outcomes. Only one study with a small sample size compared different characteristics; the study found that strategies promoting new digital intervention content and those sent to users shortly after they started using the digital intervention were more likely to engage users. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, studies reported borderline positive effects of technology-based strategies on engagement compared to no strategy. However, the results have to be interpreted with caution. More research is needed to replicate findings and understand which characteristics of the strategies are effective in promoting engagement and how cost-effective they are.

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/jmir.4790

Cites

58 of 58 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?

  • Findings among people of color are consistent with other studies showing that receiving prompts (eg, text messages, app notifications) leads to higher treatment engagement in digital interventions.

    “These findings among POC are consistent with other studies showing that receiving prompts (eg, text messages, app notifications) leads to higher treatment engagement in digital interventions [57].”

    From App-Based Mindfulness Meditation for People of Color Who Experience Race-Related Stress: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial (2022) · cites this paper as [57]

    The Discussion’s Conclusions (page unavailable) say technology-based strategies may promote engagement compared with no strategy, but caution that the evidence came from a small, heterogeneous set of studies. The citing sentence presents the effect as established rather than tentative; the paper’s listed delivery modes include text messages but do not establish an effect for app notifications specifically. The reference to findings among people of color describes the citing study’s findings, not a result attributed to this review. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Reminders, coaching, and tailored feedback delivered via telephone or email have modest to moderate effects toward increasing engagement with digital interventions targeting physical and mental health outcomes, compared to no strategy.

    “Reminders, coaching, and tailored feedback delivered via telephone or email have been found to have modest to moderate effects toward increasing engagement with digital interventions targeting physical and mental health outcomes, compared to if no strategy was used (16).”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alkhaldi, G., Hamilton, F. L., Lau, R., Webster, R., Michie, S., & Murray, E.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Alkhaldi, Ghadah
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2016-01-08
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
e6
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2231658978
Cited by
273
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 9
FWCI
5.60
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)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University College London
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
digital interventions, user engagement, prompting, reminders, self-management, chronic disease, mental health, health promotion, mobile health, user-generated content, user-generated content sharing
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Health Promotion, Humans, Medical Informatics, Self Care, Health Behavior

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