The Report of Access and Engagement With Digital Health Interventions Among Children and Young People: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital health interventions are increasingly used to deliver health-related interventions for children and young people to change health behaviors and improve health outcomes. Digital health interventions have the potential to enhance access to and engagement with children and young people; however, they may also increase the divide between those who can access technology and are supported to engage and those who are not. This review included studies that reported on the access to or engagement with digital health interventions among children and young people. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to identify and report on access and engagement in studies involving digital health interventions among children and young people. METHODS: A systematic review following the Joanna Briggs Institute methods for conducting systematic reviews was conducted. An electronic literature search was conducted for all studies published between January 1, 2010, and August 2022, across sources, including MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Studies were included if they examined any aspect of access or engagement in relation to interventions among children and young people. The quality of the included papers was assessed, and data were extracted. Data were considered for meta-analysis, where possible. RESULTS: A total of 3292 references were identified using search terms. Following the exclusion of duplicates and review by inclusion criteria, 40 studies were independently appraised for their methodological quality. A total of 16 studies were excluded owing to their low assessed quality and flawed critical elements in the study design. The studies focused on a variety of health conditions; type 1 diabetes, weight management and obesity, mental health issues, and sexual health were the predominant conditions. Most studies were conducted in developed countries, with most of them being conducted in the United States. Two studies reported data related to access and considered ethnicity and social determinants. No studies used strategies to enhance or increase access. All studies included in the review reported on at least 1 aspect of engagement. Engagement with interventions was measured in relation to frequency of engagement, with no reference to the concept of effective engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Most digital health interventions do not consider the factors that can affect access and engagement. Of those studies that measured either access or engagement or both, few sought to implement strategies to improve access or engagement to address potential disparities between groups. Although the literature to date provides some insight into access and engagement and how these are addressed in digital health interventions, there are major limitations in understanding how both can be enhanced to promote equity. Consideration of both access and engagement is vital to ensure that children and young people have the ability to participate in studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020170874; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=170874.
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 | 0.034 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".