Background Digital interventions offer a solution to address the high demand for mental health promotion, especially when facing physical contact restrictions or lacking accessibility. Engagement with digital interventions is critical for their effectiveness; however, retaining users’ engagement throughout the intervention is challenging. It remains unclear what strategies facilitate engagement with digital interventions that target mental health promotion. Objective Our aim is to conduct a scoping review to investigate user engagement strategies and methods to evaluate engagement with digital interventions that target mental health promotion in adults. Methods This scoping review adheres to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for scoping reviews. The search was conducted in 7 electronic databases from inception to April 2020. The inclusion criteria for studies were as follows: adult (aged ≥18 years) users of digital interventions for mental health promotion from the general population; any digital intervention for mental health promotion; and user engagement strategies described in the intervention design. We extracted the following data items: study characteristics, digital intervention (type and engagement strategy), evaluation of engagement strategy (method and result specifying whether the strategy was effective at facilitating engagement), and features of engagement (extent of use and subjective experience of users). Results A total of 2766 studies were identified, of which 16 (0.58%) met the inclusion criteria. The 16 studies included randomized controlled trials (6/16, 37%), studies analyzing process data (5/16, 31%), observational studies (3/16, 19%), and qualitative studies (2/16, 13%). The digital interventions for mental health promotion were either web based (12/16, 75%) or mobile app based (4/16, 25%). The engagement strategies included personalized feedback about intervention content or users’ mental health status; guidance regarding content and progress through e-coaching; social forums, and interactivity with peers; content gamification; reminders; and flexibility and ease of use. These engagement strategies were deemed effective based on qualitative user feedback or responses on questionnaires or tools (4/16, 25%), usability data (5/16, 31%), or both (7/16, 44%). Most studies identified personalized support in the form of e-coaching, peer support through a social platform, personalized feedback, or joint videoconference sessions as an engaging feature. Conclusions Personalized support during the intervention, access to social support, and personalized feedback seem to promote engagement with digital interventions for mental health promotion. These findings need to be interpreted with caution because the included studies were heterogeneous, had small sample sizes, and typically did not address engagement as the primary outcome. Despite the importance of user engagement for the effectiveness of digital interventions, this field has not yet received much attention. Further research is needed on the effectiveness of different strategies required to facilitate user engagement in digital interventions for mental health promotion.

A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews, version 2' (AMSTAR2) is a 16item tool to critically appraise systematic reviews (SRs) of healthcare interventions.This study aimed to assess the methods and outcomes of AMSTAR2 appraisals in overviews of SRs of interventions for mental and behavioural disorders. The crosssectional study was conducted using 32 overviews of SRs selected from three electronic databases in January 2021. Data items included overview and SR characteristics and AMSTAR2 appraisal methods and outcomes. Data were extracted by two authors independently and narratively synthesised using descriptive statistics (means ± SD and relative frequencies). SR characteristics were compared based on AMSTAR2 appraisal outcomes using chi-square tests. The 32 overviews appraised SRs of predominantly non-pharmacological interventions for mental disorders. AMSTAR2 appraisals were reported as confidence ratings in 25/32 overviews or individual item scores in 24/32 overviews. Most SRs/overview were non-Cochrane (mean = 94%), included RCTs only (mean = 77%) and were published before AMSTAR2 release (mean = 79%). The confidence ratings derived in 25 overviews for 349 SRs were predominantly critically low (68%). Confidence ratings were similar for SRs with RCTs only versus RCTs+non-RCTs or SRs published before versus after AMSTAR2 release, while Cochrane SRs received more high+moderate than low+critically low confidence ratings (p < 0.01). Confidence ratings derived based on AMSTAR2 do not differentiate among SRs of healthcare interventions except for Cochrane SRs that fulfil the criteria for high confidence ratings. AMSTAR2 items should be consulted to avoid common weaknesses in future SRs.

Background Digital interventions are interventions supported by digital tools or technologies, such as mobile apps, wearables, or web-based software. Digital interventions in the context of public health are specifically designed to promote and improve health. Recent reviews have shown that many digital interventions target physical activity promotion; however, it is unclear how such digital interventions are evaluated. Objective We aimed to investigate evaluation strategies in the context of digital interventions for physical activity promotion using a scoping review of published reviews. We focused on the target (ie, user outcomes or tool performance), methods (ie, tool data or self-reported data), and theoretical frameworks of the evaluation strategies. Methods A protocol for this study was preregistered and published. From among 300 reviews published up to March 19, 2021 in Medline, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases, 40 reviews (1 rapid, 9 scoping, and 30 systematic) were included in this scoping review. Two authors independently performed study selection and data coding. Consensus was reached by discussion. If applicable, data were coded quantitatively into predefined categories or qualitatively using definitions or author statements from the included reviews. Data were analyzed using either descriptive statistics, for quantitative data (relative frequencies out of all studies), or narrative synthesis focusing on common themes, for qualitative data. Results Most reviews that were included in our scoping review were published in the period from 2019 to 2021 and originated from Europe or Australia. Most primary studies cited in the reviews included adult populations in clinical or nonclinical settings, and focused on mobile apps or wearables for physical activity promotion. The evaluation target was a user outcome (efficacy, acceptability, usability, feasibility, or engagement) in 38 of the 40 reviews or tool performance in 24 of the 40 reviews. Evaluation methods relied upon objective tool data (in 35/40 reviews) or other data from self-reports or assessments (in 28/40 reviews). Evaluation frameworks based on behavior change theory, including goal setting, self-monitoring, feedback on behavior, and educational or motivational content, were mentioned in 22 out of 40 reviews. Behavior change theory was included in the development phases of digital interventions according to the findings of 20 out of 22 reviews. Conclusions The evaluation of digital interventions is a high priority according to the reviews included in this scoping review. Evaluations of digital interventions, including mobile apps or wearables for physical activity promotion, typically target user outcomes and rely upon objective tool data. Behavior change theory may provide useful guidance not only for development of digital interventions but also for the evaluation of user outcomes in the context of physical activity promotion. Future research should investigate factors that could improve the efficacy of digital interventions and the standardization of terminology and reporting in this field. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/35332

Background Digital technologies are shaping medicine and public health. Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the attitudes toward and the use of digital technologies for health-related purposes using a nationwide survey. Methods We performed a cross-sectional study using a panel sample of internet users selected from the general population living in Germany. Responses to a survey with 28 items were collected using computer-assisted telephone interviews conducted in October 2020. The items were divided into four topics: (1) general attitudes toward digitization, (2) COVID-19 pandemic, (3) physical activity, and (4) perceived digital health (eHealth) literacy measured with the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS; sum score of 8=lowest to 40=highest perceived eHealth literacy). The data were analyzed in IBM-SPSS24 using relative frequencies. Three univariate multiple regression analyses (linear or binary logistic) were performed to investigate the associations among the sociodemographic factors (age, gender, education, and household income) and digital technology use. Results The participants included 1014 internet users (n=528, 52.07% women) aged 14 to 93 years (mean 54, SD 17). Among all participants, 66.47% (674/1014) completed up to tertiary (primary and secondary) education and 45.07% (457/1017) reported a household income of up to 3500 Euro/month (1 Euro=US $1.18). Over half (579/1014, 57.10%) reported having used digital technologies for health-related purposes. The majority (898/1014, 88.56%) noted that digitization will be important for therapy and health care, in the future. Only 25.64% (260/1014) reported interest in smartphone apps for health promotion/prevention and 42.70% (433/1014) downloaded the COVID-19 contact-tracing app. Although 52.47% (532/1014) reported that they come across inaccurate digital information on the COVID-19 pandemic, 78.01% (791/1014) were confident in their ability to recognize such inaccurate information. Among those who use digital technologies for moderate physical activity (n=220), 187 (85.0%) found such technologies easy to use and 140 (63.6%) reported using them regularly (at least once a week). Although the perceived eHealth literacy was high (eHEALS mean score 31 points, SD 6), less than half (43.10%, 400/928) were confident in using digital information for health decisions. The use of digital technologies for health was associated with higher household income (odds ratio [OR] 1.28, 95% CI 1.11-1.47). The use of digital technologies for physical activity was associated with younger age (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.94-0.96) and more education (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.46). A higher perceived eHealth literacy score was associated with younger age (β=–.22, P<.001), higher household income (β=.21, P<.001), and more education (β=.14, P<.001). Conclusions Internet users in Germany expect that digitization will affect preventive and therapeutic health care in the future. The facilitators and barriers associated with the use of digital technologies for health warrant further research. A gap exists between high confidence in the perceived ability to evaluate digital information and low trust in internet-based information on the COVID-19 pandemic and health decisions.

Background Digital interventions (DIs) could support physical activity (PA) promotion, according to recent reviews. However, it remains unclear if and how DIs for PA promotion are evaluated; thus, it is unclear if they support behavior change in real-world settings. A mapping of evidence from published reviews is required to focus on the evaluation of DIs for PA promotion. Objective The aim of our study is to investigate evaluation strategies for any outcome in the context of DIs for PA promotion by conducting a scoping review of published reviews. Methods Our scoping review adheres to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. The information sources include bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) and the bibliographies of the selected studies. The electronic search strategy was developed and conducted in collaboration with an experienced database specialist. The electronic search was conducted in English with no limits up to March 19, 2021, for sources with the terms digital intervention AND evaluation AND physical activity in titles or abstracts. After deduplication, 300 reviews selected from 4912 search results were assessed for eligibility by 2 authors working independently. The inclusion criteria were (1) healthy or clinical samples (population), (2) DIs for PA promotion (intervention), (3) comparisons to any other intervention or no intervention (comparison), (4) evaluation strategies (methods, results, or frameworks) for any outcome in the context of DIs for PA promotion (outcome), and (5) any published review (study type). According to the consensus reached during a discussion, 40 reviews met the inclusion criteria—36 from the electronic search and 4 from the manual search of the bibliographies of the 36 reviews. All reviews reported the evaluation strategies for any outcomes in the context of DIs for PA promotion in healthy or clinical samples. Data coding and the quality appraisal of systematic reviews are currently being performed independently by 2 authors. Results Our scoping review includes data from 40 published reviews (1 rapid review, 9 scoping reviews, and 30 systematic reviews). The focus of data coding is on evaluation strategies in the context of DIs for PA promotion and on the critical appraisal of the included systematic reviews. The final consensus regarding all data is expected in early 2022. Conclusions Interventions for PA promotion that are supported by digital technologies require evaluation to ensure their efficacy in real-world settings. Our scoping review is needed because it addresses novel objectives that focus on such evaluations and are not answered in the published reviews identified in our search. The evaluation strategies addressing DIs for PA promotion will be mapped to synthesize the results that have been reported in published reviews so far. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/35332