@文章{信息:doi/10.2196/39204，作者="Lipschitz, Jessica M和Van Boxtel, Rachel和Torous, John和Firth, Joseph和Lebovitz, Julia G和Burdick, Katherine E和Hogan, Timothy P"，标题="抑郁症的数字心理健康干预:用户参与度的范围审查"，期刊="J医学互联网Res"，年="2022"，月="10"，日="14"，卷="24"，数字="10"，页="e39204"，关键词="mHealth;移动应用;参与;依从性;随机对照试验;背景:虽然许多数字心理健康干预(DMHIs)已被发现是有效的，但患者与DMHIs的参与越来越多地成为现实世界临床环境中实施的一个问题。为了解决敬业度问题，我们必须首先了解随机对照试验(rct)中的标准敬业度水平，以及如何与其他治疗方法进行比较。目的:本范围综述旨在检查旨在治疗抑郁症症状的基于移动应用的干预的随机对照试验中干预参与的报告状态。我们试图确定哪些是用户粘性指标，哪些不是常规报告的指标，以及报告的指标反映了标准的用户粘性水平。方法:我们对7个数据库进行了系统检索，以确定符合我们的资格标准的研究，即评估基于移动应用程序的成人干预使用的随机对照试验，其中抑郁症状是主要研究结果。 We then extracted 2 kinds of information from each article: intervention details and indices of DMHI engagement. A 5-element framework of minimum necessary DMHI engagement reporting was derived by our team and guided our data extraction. This framework included (1) recommended app use as communicated to participants at enrollment and, when reported, app adherence criteria; (2) rate of intervention uptake among those assigned to the intervention; (3) level of app use metrics reported, specifically number of uses and time spent using the app; (4) duration of app use metrics (ie, weekly use patterns); and (5) number of intervention completers. Results: Database searching yielded 2083 unique records. Of these, 22 studies were eligible for inclusion. Only 64{\%} (14/22) of studies included in this review specified rate of intervention uptake. Level of use metrics was only reported in 59{\%} (13/22) of the studies reviewed. Approximately one-quarter of the studies (5/22, 23{\%}) reported duration of use metrics. Only half (11/22, 50{\%}) of the studies reported the number of participants who completed the app-based components of the intervention as intended or other metrics related to completion. Findings in those studies reporting metrics related to intervention completion indicated that between 14.4{\%} and 93.0{\%} of participants randomized to a DMHI condition completed the intervention as intended or according to a specified adherence criteria. Conclusions: Findings suggest that engagement was underreported and widely varied. It was not uncommon to see completion rates at or below 50{\%} (11/22) of those participants randomized to a treatment condition or to simply see completion rates not reported at all. This variability in reporting suggests a failure to establish sufficient reporting standards and limits the conclusions that can be drawn about level of engagement with DMHIs. Based on these findings, the 5-element framework applied in this review may be useful as a minimum necessary standard for DMHI engagement reporting. ", issn="1438-8871", doi="10.2196/39204", url="//www.mybigtv.com/2022/10/e39204", url="https://doi.org/10.2196/39204", url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36240001" }