MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199511266 · doi:10.2196/25129

Behavioral Theories and Motivational Features Underlying eHealth Interventions for Adolescent Antiretroviral Adherence: Systematic Review

2021· review· en· W3199511266 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alemitu Bezabih, Kathrin Gerling, Workeabeba Abebe, Vero Vanden Abeele

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordseHealthPsychological interventionmHealthPsychologyTheory of planned behaviorHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)TelehealthBehavior changeClinical psychologyMedicineTelemedicineHealth careComputer scienceSocial psychologyPsychiatryFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: eHealth systems provide new opportunities for the delivery of antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence interventions for adolescents. They may be more effective if grounded in health behavior theories and behavior change techniques (BCTs). Prior reviews have examined the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of these eHealth systems. However, studies have not systematically explored the use of health behavior theories and BCTs in the design of these applications. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to explore whether health behavior theories and BCTs were considered to ground designs of eHealth systems supporting adolescents' (10-24 years) ART adherence. More specifically, we examined which specific theories and BCTs were applied, and how these BCTs were implemented as design features. Additionally, we investigated the quality and effect of eHealth systems. METHODS: A systematic search was performed on IEEE Xplore, ACM, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from 2000 to 2020. Theory use and BCTs were coded using the Theory Coding Scheme and the Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1), respectively. Design features were identified using the lenses of motivational design for mobile health (mHealth). The number of BCTs and design features for each eHealth system and their prevalence across all systems were assessed. RESULTS: This review identified 16 eHealth systems aiming to support ART adherence among adolescents. System types include SMS text message reminders (n=6), phone call reminders (n=3), combined SMS text message and phone call reminders (n=1), electronic adherence monitoring devices (n=3), smartphone apps (n=1), smartphone serious games (n=1), gamified smartphone apps (n=1), leveraging existing social media (n=2), web-based applications (n=1), videoconferencing (n=1), and desktop applications (n=1). Nine were grounded in theory, of which 3 used theories extensively. The impact of adolescent developmental changes on ART adherence was not made explicit. A total of 42 different BCTs and 24 motivational design features were used across systems. Ten systems reported positive effects on 1 or more outcomes; however, of these ten systems, only 3 reported exclusively positive effects on all the outcomes they measured. As much as 6 out of 16 reported purely no effect in all the outcomes measured. CONCLUSIONS: Basic applications (SMS text messaging and phone calls) were most frequent, although more advanced systems such as mobile apps and games are also emerging. This review indicated gaps in the use of theory and BCTs, and particularly the impact of developmental changes on ART adherence was not adequately considered. Together with adopting a developmental orientation, future eHealth systems should effectively leverage health theories and consider developing more advanced systems that open the door to using BCTs more comprehensively. Overall, the impact of eHealth systems on adolescent ART adherence and its mediators is promising, but conclusive evidence on effect still needs to be provided.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.253
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207