Cross-Cutting mHealth Behavior Change Techniques to Support Treatment Adherence and Self-Management of Complex Medical Conditions: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mobile health (mHealth) interventions have immense potential to support disease self-management for people with complex medical conditions following treatment regimens that involve taking medicine and other self-management activities. However, there is no consensus on what discrete behavior change techniques (BCTs) should be used in an effective adherence and self-management-promoting mHealth solution for any chronic illness. Reviewing the extant literature to identify effective, cross-cutting BCTs in mHealth interventions for adherence and self-management promotion could help accelerate the development, evaluation, and dissemination of behavior change interventions with potential generalizability across complex medical conditions. Objective: This study aimed to identify cross-cutting, mHealth-based BCTs to incorporate into effective mHealth adherence and self-management interventions for people with complex medical conditions, by systematically reviewing the literature across chronic medical conditions with similar adherence and self-management demands. Methods: A registered systematic review was conducted to identify published evaluations of mHealth adherence and self-management interventions for chronic medical conditions with complex adherence and self-management demands. The methodological characteristics and BCTs in each study were extracted using a standard data collection form. Results: A total of 122 studies were reviewed; the majority involved people with type 2 diabetes (28/122, 23%), asthma (27/122, 22%), and type 1 diabetes (19/122, 16%). mHealth interventions rated as having a positive outcome on adherence and self-management used more BCTs (mean 4.95, SD 2.56) than interventions with no impact on outcomes (mean 3.57, SD 1.95) or those that used >1 outcome measure or analytic approach (mean 3.90, SD 1.93; P=.02). The following BCTs were associated with positive outcomes: self-monitoring outcomes of behavior (39/59, 66%), feedback on outcomes of behavior (34/59, 58%), self-monitoring of behavior (34/59, 58%), feedback on behavior (29/59, 49%), credible source (24/59, 41%), and goal setting (behavior; 14/59, 24%). In adult-only samples, prompts and cues were associated with positive outcomes (34/45, 76%). In adolescent and young adult samples, information about health consequences (1/4, 25%), problem-solving (1/4, 25%), and material reward (behavior; 2/4, 50%) were associated with positive outcomes. In interventions explicitly targeting medicine taking, prompts and cues (25/33, 76%) and credible source (13/33, 39%) were associated with positive outcomes. In interventions focused on self-management and other adherence targets, instruction on how to perform the behavior (8/26, 31%), goal setting (behavior; 8/26, 31%), and action planning (5/26, 19%) were associated with positive outcomes. Conclusions: To support adherence and self-management in people with complex medical conditions, mHealth tools should purposefully incorporate effective and developmentally appropriate BCTs. A cross-cutting approach to BCT selection could accelerate the development of much-needed mHealth interventions for target populations, although mHealth intervention developers should continue to consider the unique needs of the target population when designing these tools.
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 | 0.012 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".