Background Mobile health (mHealth) apps show vast potential in supporting patients and health care systems with the increasing prevalence and economic costs of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) worldwide. However, despite the availability of evidence-based mHealth apps, a substantial proportion of users do not adhere to them as intended and may consequently not receive treatment. Therefore, understanding the factors that act as barriers to or facilitators of adherence is a fundamental concern in preventing intervention dropouts and increasing the effectiveness of digital health interventions. Objective This review aimed to help stakeholders develop more effective digital health interventions by identifying factors influencing the continued use of mHealth apps targeting NCDs. We further derived quantified adherence scores for various health domains to validate the qualitative findings and explore adherence benchmarks. Methods A comprehensive systematic literature search (January 2007 to December 2020) was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and ACM Digital Library. Data on intended use, actual use, and factors influencing adherence were extracted. Intervention-related and patient-related factors with a positive or negative influence on adherence are presented separately for the health domains of NCD self-management, mental health, substance use, nutrition, physical activity, weight loss, multicomponent lifestyle interventions, mindfulness, and other NCDs. Quantified adherence measures, calculated as the ratio between the estimated intended use and actual use, were derived for each study and compared with the qualitative findings. Results The literature search yielded 2862 potentially relevant articles, of which 99 (3.46%) were included as part of the inclusion criteria. A total of 4 intervention-related factors indicated positive effects on adherence across all health domains: personalization or tailoring of the content of mHealth apps to the individual needs of the user, reminders in the form of individualized push notifications, user-friendly and technically stable app design, and personal support complementary to the digital intervention. Social and gamification features were also identified as drivers of app adherence across several health domains. A wide variety of patient-related factors such as user characteristics or recruitment channels further affects adherence. The derived adherence scores of the included mHealth apps averaged 56.0% (SD 24.4%). Conclusions This study contributes to the scarce scientific evidence on factors that positively or negatively influence adherence to mHealth apps and is the first to quantitatively compare adherence relative to the intended use of various health domains. As underlying studies mostly have a pilot character with short study durations, research on factors influencing adherence to mHealth apps is still limited. To facilitate future research on mHealth app adherence, researchers should clearly outline and justify the app’s intended use; report objective data on actual use relative to the intended use; and, ideally, provide long-term use and retention data.

Background: Despite the widely recognised importance of cultural adaptation to increase the effectiveness of psychological interventions, there is little guidance on its process. Developed based on existing theory, we applied a four-step process to culturally adapt a low-intensity psychological intervention for use in humanitarian settings. Methods: The four-step process was applied to adapt a WHO low-intensity psychological intervention (i.e. Problem Management Plus, or PM+) for use with displaced Venezuelans and Colombians in Colombia. First, a rapid desk review was used as an (1) information gathering tool to identify local population characteristics. Next, the results were taken forward for the (2) formulation of adaptation hypotheses, whereby PM+ protocols were screened to identify components for adaptation, drawing on the Ecological Validity Model. Third, the elements flagged for adaptation were taken forward for (3) local consultation to firstly, verify the components identified for adaptation, to identify other areas in need of adaptation, and thirdly, to adapt the intervention protocols. Finally, the adapted intervention protocols were reviewed through (4) external evaluations with local experts. Results: The information gathering phase yielded key information on the socioeconomic aspects of the groups targeted for intervention, the availability and need for mental health and psychosocial support, and existing barriers to accessing care. The adaptation hypotheses phase further identified the need for clearer explanations of key concepts, the need for sensitive topics to match local attitudes (e.g., domestic violence, thoughts of suicide), and the identification of culturally appropriate social supports. Building on these first two phases, local consultation subsequently resulted in revised PM+ protocols. The adapted protocols differed from the original format in their focus on the problems unique to these population groups, the way that psychological distress is expressed in this context, and the inclusion of locally available supports. The results of the external evaluation supported the adaptations made to the protocols.

BackgroundCulturally adapted psychotherapy (CAP) studies are limited and until now there are few published examples that illustrate the process of cultural adaptation with internet-delivered treatments.AimThis paper aims to illustrate an integrative approach to the cultural adaptation of an evidence-based internet-delivered cognitive-behavioural therapy intervention for depression (Space from Depression programme).MethodMixed method approach utilising quantitative and qualitative methods to assist in the cultural adaptation of the Space from Depression programme was used. The adaptation involved a framework for cultural sensitivity (CSF), alongside an ecological validity framework (EVF) and principles from cross-cultural assessment research. The method included the development of a theory-informed measure, the Cultural Relevance Questionnaire (CRQ), designed specifically for this research.ResultsThe adaptation included an establishment of CSF, which included the incorporation of Colombian cultural expressions. College students' (n = 5) and experts' (n = 7) evaluated the EVF based on cross-cultural assessment principles of a preliminary adapted version through the CRQ, showing reliability in the sample (Cronbach's Alpha 0.744). Qualitative analysis supported the culturally sensitive changes or incorporations made to the programme, such as: personal stories and textual translations from English and these were considered ecologically valid and representative.ConclusionsThe research provided support for the idea that CAP can be conducted systematically for internet-delivered interventions.

The CONSORT-EHEALTH checklist is intended for authors of randomized trials evaluating webbased and Internet-based applications/interventions, including mobile interventions, electronic games (incl multiplayer games), social media, certain telehealth applications, and other interactive and/or networked electronic applications. Some of the items (e.g. all subitems under item 5description of the intervention) may also be applicable for other study designs.The goal of the CONSORT EHEALTH checklist and guideline is to be a) a guide for reporting for authors of RCTs, b) to form a basis for appraisal of an ehealth trial (in terms of validity)CONSORT-EHEALTH items/subitems are MANDATORY reporting items for studies published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research and other journals / scienti c societies endorsing the checklist.Items numbered 1., 2., 3., 4a., 4b etc are original CONSORT or CONSORT-NPT (non-pharmacologic treatment) items. Items with Roman numerals (i., ii, iii, iv etc.) are CONSORT-EHEALTH extensions/clari cations.As the CONSORT-EHEALTH checklist is still considered in a formative stage, we would ask that you also RATE ON A SCALE OF 1-5 how important/useful you feel each item is FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE CHECKLIST and reporting guideline (optional).