Surveying the Role of Analytics in Evaluating Digital Mental Health Interventions for Transition-Aged Youth: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Consumer-facing digital health interventions provide a promising avenue to bridge gaps in mental health care delivery. To evaluate these interventions, understanding how the target population uses a solution is critical to the overall validity and reliability of the evaluation. As a result, usage data (analytics) can provide a proxy for evaluating the engagement of a solution. However, there is paucity of guidance on how usage data or analytics should be used to assess and evaluate digital mental health interventions. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to examine how usage data are collected and analyzed in evaluations of mental health mobile apps for transition-aged youth (15-29 years). METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. A systematic search was conducted on 5 journal databases using keywords related to usage and engagement, mental health apps, and evaluation. A total of 1784 papers from 2008 to 2019 were identified and screened to ensure that they included analytics and evaluated a mental health app for transition-aged youth. After full-text screening, 49 papers were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Of the 49 papers included in the analysis, 40 unique digital mental health innovations were evaluated, and about 80% (39/49) of the papers were published over the past 6 years. About 80% involved a randomized controlled trial and evaluated apps with information delivery features. There were heterogeneous findings in the concept that analytics was ascribed to, with the top 3 being engagement, adherence, and acceptability. There was also a significant spread in the number of metrics collected by each study, with 35% (17/49) of the papers collecting only 1 metric and 29% (14/49) collecting 4 or more analytic metrics. The number of modules completed, the session duration, and the number of log ins were the most common usage metrics collected. CONCLUSIONS: This review of current literature identified significant variability and heterogeneity in using analytics to evaluate digital mental health interventions for transition-aged youth. The large proportion of publications from the last 6 years suggests that user analytics is increasingly being integrated into the evaluation of these apps. Numerous gaps related to selecting appropriate and relevant metrics and defining successful or high levels of engagement have been identified for future exploration. Although long-term use or adoption is an important precursor to realizing the expected benefits of an app, few studies have examined this issue. Researchers would benefit from clarification and guidance on how to measure and analyze app usage in terms of evaluating digital mental health interventions for transition-aged youth. Given the established role of adoption in the success of health information technologies, understanding how to abstract and analyze user adoption for consumer digital mental health apps is also an emerging priority.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.089 | 0.328 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".