Application of a Sociotechnical Framework to Uncover Factors That Influence Effective User Engagement With Digital Mental Health Tools in Clinical Care Contexts: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital health tools such as mobile apps and patient portals continue to be embedded in clinical care pathways to enhance mental health care delivery and achieve the quintuple aim of improving patient experience, population health, care team well-being, health care costs, and equity. However, a key issue that has greatly hindered the value of these tools is the suboptimal user engagement by patients and families. With only a small fraction of users staying engaged over time, there is a great need to better understand the factors that influence user engagement with digital mental health tools in clinical care settings. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to identify the factors relevant to user engagement with digital mental health tools in clinical care settings using a sociotechnical approach. METHODS: A scoping review methodology was used to identify the relevant factors from the literature. Five academic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO) were searched to identify pertinent articles using key terms related to user engagement, mental health, and digital health tools. The abstracts were screened independently by 2 reviewers, and data were extracted using a standardized data extraction form. Articles were included if the digital mental health tool had at least 1 patient-facing component and 1 clinician-facing component, and at least one of the objectives of the article was to examine user engagement with the tool. An established sociotechnical framework developed by Sittig and Singh was used to inform the mapping and analysis of the factors. RESULTS: The database search identified 136 articles for inclusion in the analysis. Of these 136 articles, 84 (61.8%) were published in the last 5 years, 47 (34.6%) were from the United States, and 23 (16.9%) were from the United Kingdom. With regard to examining user engagement, the majority of the articles (95/136, 69.9%) used a qualitative approach to understand engagement. From these articles, 26 factors were identified across 7 categories of the established sociotechnical framework. These ranged from technology-focused factors (eg, the modality of the tool) and the clinical environment (eg, alignment with clinical workflows) to system-level issues (eg, reimbursement for physician use of the digital tool with patients). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the factors identified in this review, we have uncovered how the tool, individuals, the clinical environment, and the health system may influence user engagement with digital mental health tools for clinical care. Future work should focus on validating and identifying a core set of essential factors for user engagement with digital mental health tools in clinical care environments. Moreover, exploring strategies for improving user engagement through these factors would be useful for health care leaders and clinicians interested in using digital health tools in care.
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 | 0.069 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.052 | 0.036 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".