Adherence reporting in randomized controlled trials examining manualized multisession online interventions: Systematic review of practices and proposal for reporting standards

I. Beintner, Bianca Vollert, Anna Carlotta Zarski, Felix Bolinski, Peter Musiat, Dennis Görlich, David Daniel Ebert, Corinna Jacobi

Research output: Contribution to JournalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Background: Adherence reflects the extent to which individuals experience or engage with the content of online interventions and poses a major challenge. Neglecting to examine and report adherence and its relation to outcomes can compromise the interpretation of research findings. Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to analyze how adherence is accounted for in publications and to propose standards for measuring and reporting adherence to online interventions. Methods: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials on online interventions for the prevention and treatment of common mental disorders (depression, anxiety disorders, substance related disorders, and eating disorders) published between January 2006 and May 2018 and indexed in Medline and Web of Science. We included primary publications on manualized online treatments (more than 1 session and successive access to content) and examined how adherence was reported in these publications. Results: We identified 216 publications that met our inclusion criteria. Adherence was addressed in 85% of full-text manuscripts, but only in 31% of abstracts. A median of three usage metrics were reported; the most frequently reported usage metric (61%) was intervention completion. Manuscripts published in specialized electronic health journals more frequently included information on the relation of adherence and outcomes. Conclusions: We found substantial variety in the reporting of adherence and the usage metrics used to operationalize adherence. This limits the comparability of results and impedes the integration of findings from different studies. Based on our findings, we propose reporting standards for future publications on online interventions.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere14181
Pages (from-to)1-10
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Medical Internet Research
Volume21
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 14 Aug 2019

Fingerprint

Publications
Randomized Controlled Trials
Manuscripts
Anxiety Disorders
Mental Disorders
Substance-Related Disorders
Depression
Health
Research

Keywords

  • adherence
  • e-mental health
  • reporting
  • review

Cite this

@article{701e048a187c42a78fef236caed3bbc3,
title = "Adherence reporting in randomized controlled trials examining manualized multisession online interventions: Systematic review of practices and proposal for reporting standards",
abstract = "Background: Adherence reflects the extent to which individuals experience or engage with the content of online interventions and poses a major challenge. Neglecting to examine and report adherence and its relation to outcomes can compromise the interpretation of research findings. Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to analyze how adherence is accounted for in publications and to propose standards for measuring and reporting adherence to online interventions. Methods: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials on online interventions for the prevention and treatment of common mental disorders (depression, anxiety disorders, substance related disorders, and eating disorders) published between January 2006 and May 2018 and indexed in Medline and Web of Science. We included primary publications on manualized online treatments (more than 1 session and successive access to content) and examined how adherence was reported in these publications. Results: We identified 216 publications that met our inclusion criteria. Adherence was addressed in 85{\%} of full-text manuscripts, but only in 31{\%} of abstracts. A median of three usage metrics were reported; the most frequently reported usage metric (61{\%}) was intervention completion. Manuscripts published in specialized electronic health journals more frequently included information on the relation of adherence and outcomes. Conclusions: We found substantial variety in the reporting of adherence and the usage metrics used to operationalize adherence. This limits the comparability of results and impedes the integration of findings from different studies. Based on our findings, we propose reporting standards for future publications on online interventions.",
keywords = "adherence, e-mental health, reporting, review",
author = "I. Beintner and Bianca Vollert and Zarski, {Anna Carlotta} and Felix Bolinski and Peter Musiat and Dennis G{\"o}rlich and Ebert, {David Daniel} and Corinna Jacobi",
year = "2019",
month = "8",
day = "14",
doi = "10.2196/14181",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "1--10",
journal = "Journal of Medical Internet Research",
issn = "1438-8871",
publisher = "Journal of medical Internet Research",
number = "8",

}

Adherence reporting in randomized controlled trials examining manualized multisession online interventions : Systematic review of practices and proposal for reporting standards. / Beintner, I.; Vollert, Bianca; Zarski, Anna Carlotta; Bolinski, Felix; Musiat, Peter; Görlich, Dennis; Ebert, David Daniel; Jacobi, Corinna.

In: Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 21, No. 8, e14181, 14.08.2019, p. 1-10.

Research output: Contribution to JournalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adherence reporting in randomized controlled trials examining manualized multisession online interventions

T2 - Systematic review of practices and proposal for reporting standards

AU - Beintner, I.

AU - Vollert, Bianca

AU - Zarski, Anna Carlotta

AU - Bolinski, Felix

AU - Musiat, Peter

AU - Görlich, Dennis

AU - Ebert, David Daniel

AU - Jacobi, Corinna

PY - 2019/8/14

Y1 - 2019/8/14

N2 - Background: Adherence reflects the extent to which individuals experience or engage with the content of online interventions and poses a major challenge. Neglecting to examine and report adherence and its relation to outcomes can compromise the interpretation of research findings. Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to analyze how adherence is accounted for in publications and to propose standards for measuring and reporting adherence to online interventions. Methods: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials on online interventions for the prevention and treatment of common mental disorders (depression, anxiety disorders, substance related disorders, and eating disorders) published between January 2006 and May 2018 and indexed in Medline and Web of Science. We included primary publications on manualized online treatments (more than 1 session and successive access to content) and examined how adherence was reported in these publications. Results: We identified 216 publications that met our inclusion criteria. Adherence was addressed in 85% of full-text manuscripts, but only in 31% of abstracts. A median of three usage metrics were reported; the most frequently reported usage metric (61%) was intervention completion. Manuscripts published in specialized electronic health journals more frequently included information on the relation of adherence and outcomes. Conclusions: We found substantial variety in the reporting of adherence and the usage metrics used to operationalize adherence. This limits the comparability of results and impedes the integration of findings from different studies. Based on our findings, we propose reporting standards for future publications on online interventions.

AB - Background: Adherence reflects the extent to which individuals experience or engage with the content of online interventions and poses a major challenge. Neglecting to examine and report adherence and its relation to outcomes can compromise the interpretation of research findings. Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to analyze how adherence is accounted for in publications and to propose standards for measuring and reporting adherence to online interventions. Methods: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials on online interventions for the prevention and treatment of common mental disorders (depression, anxiety disorders, substance related disorders, and eating disorders) published between January 2006 and May 2018 and indexed in Medline and Web of Science. We included primary publications on manualized online treatments (more than 1 session and successive access to content) and examined how adherence was reported in these publications. Results: We identified 216 publications that met our inclusion criteria. Adherence was addressed in 85% of full-text manuscripts, but only in 31% of abstracts. A median of three usage metrics were reported; the most frequently reported usage metric (61%) was intervention completion. Manuscripts published in specialized electronic health journals more frequently included information on the relation of adherence and outcomes. Conclusions: We found substantial variety in the reporting of adherence and the usage metrics used to operationalize adherence. This limits the comparability of results and impedes the integration of findings from different studies. Based on our findings, we propose reporting standards for future publications on online interventions.

KW - adherence

KW - e-mental health

KW - reporting

KW - review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071282270&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071282270&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2196/14181

DO - 10.2196/14181

M3 - Review article

VL - 21

SP - 1

EP - 10

JO - Journal of Medical Internet Research

JF - Journal of Medical Internet Research

SN - 1438-8871

IS - 8

M1 - e14181

ER -