Understanding factors affecting patient and public engagement and recruitment to digital health interventions: a systematic review of qualitative studies

Abstract

BackgroundNumerous types of digital health interventions (DHIs) are available to patients and the public but many factors affect their ability to engage and enrol in them. This systematic review aims to identify and synthesise the qualitative literature on barriers and facilitators to engagement and recruitment to DHIs to inform future implementation efforts.MethodsPubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus and the ACM Digital Library were searched for English language qualitative studies from 2000 – 2015 that discussed factors affecting engagement and enrolment in a range of DHIs (e.g. ‘telemedicine’, ‘mobile applications’, ‘personal health record’, ‘social networking’). Text mining and additional search strategies were used to identify 1,448 records. Two reviewers independently carried out paper screening, quality assessment, data extraction and analysis. Data was analysed using framework synthesis, informed by Normalization Process Theory, and Burden of Treatment Theory helped conceptualise the interpretation of results.ResultsNineteen publications were included in the review. Four overarching themes that affect patient and public engagement and enrolment in DHIs emerged; 1) personal agency and motivation; 2) personal life and values; 3) the engagement and recruitment approach; and 4) the quality of the DHI. The review also summarises engagement and recruitment strategies used. A preliminary DIgital Health EnGagement MOdel (DIEGO) was developed to highlight the key processes involved. Existing knowledge gaps are identified and a number of recommendations made for future research. Study limitations include English language publications and exclusion of grey literature.ConclusionThis review summarises and highlights the complexity of digital health engagement and recruitment processes and outlines issues that need to be addressed before patients and the public commit to digital health and it can be implemented effectively. More work is needed to create successful engagement strategies and better quality digital solutions that are personalised where possible and to gain clinical accreditation and endorsement when appropriate. More investment is also needed to improve computer literacy and ensure technologies are accessible and affordable for those who wish to sign up to them.Systematic review registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42015029846Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0359-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Mobile App for Improved Self-Management of Type 2 Diabetes: Multicenter Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)

“…A recent systematic review on factors that impact engagement with digital health interventions highlighted the importance of both patient factors and engagement and recruitment methods [35]. Several recent studies of apps for T2DM have emphasized the importance of an implementation that includes a strong clinical endorsement and ongoing clinical support to increase overall usage [36,37].…”

Involving Citizen-Patients in the Development of Telehealth Services: Qualitative Study of Experts’ and Citizen-Patients’ Perspectives (Preprint)

“…In the same vein, telehealth also raises issues related to digital democracy and the right of all citizens to equally benefit from advances made in digital health, which leads several authors to call for a better consideration of the perspectives of people and communities who are, or could be, affected by these issues [12,[15][16][17][18][19]. In order to overcome such issues, at least in part, the idea of involving citizens-patients (the term refers to patients or their representatives, their family, as well as citizens, public and communities who are actual or potential users of health services) in the decisions concerning the development of telehealth services has been proposed [19][20][21][22]. Moreover, this involvement should not only occur in the evaluation of telehealth as a "technical object" (e.g.…”

Methods to Evaluate the Effects of Internet-Based Digital Health Interventions for Citizens: Systematic Review of Reviews (Preprint)

“…Although evidence of the potential benefit of digital health for improving care delivery and patient outcomes has been described [8], numerous factors can affect patient and public engagement in using digital health interventions such as lack of motivation, busy lifestyle, poor digital literacy, complexity and usability [2]. Other difficulties include the rapid change of technology, which requires digital health interventions to constantly evolve and be updated [11].…”

“…Careful monitoring and systematic evaluations of digital health interventions, however, have been few in number, in contrast to the proliferation of digital health pilot projects [16]. As a consequence, the current research evidence on which methods should be used to evaluate digital health services is still fragmented [2].…”

“…A variety of study designs have been implemented in practice to evaluate digital health interventions. Much of the evidence has been generated through quantitative methods, such as pilot studies or clinical trials, although the number of qualitative studies is also increasing [2]. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard in evaluating healthcare interventions [12].…”