Understanding What Drives Long-term Engagement in Digital Mental Health Interventions: Secondary Causal Analysis of the Relationship Between Social Networking and Therapy Engagement.

Shaunagh O'Sullivan, Niels van Berkel, Vassilis Kostakos, Lianne Schmaal, Simon D'Alfonso, Lee Valentine, Sarah Bendall, Barnaby Nelson, John F Gleeson, Mario Alvarez-Jimenez
Author Information
  1. Shaunagh O'Sullivan: Centre for Youth Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. ORCID
  2. Niels van Berkel: Department of Computer Science, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. ORCID
  3. Vassilis Kostakos: School of Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. ORCID
  4. Lianne Schmaal: Centre for Youth Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. ORCID
  5. Simon D'Alfonso: School of Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. ORCID
  6. Lee Valentine: Centre for Youth Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. ORCID
  7. Sarah Bendall: Centre for Youth Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. ORCID
  8. Barnaby Nelson: Centre for Youth Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. ORCID
  9. John F Gleeson: Healthy Brain and Mind Research Centre, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia. ORCID
  10. Mario Alvarez-Jimenez: Centre for Youth Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. ORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Low engagement rates with digital mental health interventions are a major challenge in the field. Multicomponent digital interventions aim to improve engagement by adding components such as social networks. Although social networks may be engaging, they may not be sufficient to improve clinical outcomes or lead users to engage with key therapeutic components. Therefore, we need to understand what components drive engagement with digital mental health interventions overall and what drives engagement with key therapeutic components.
OBJECTIVE: Horyzons was an 18-month digital mental health intervention for young people recovering from first-episode psychosis, incorporating therapeutic content and a private social network. However, it is unclear whether use of the social network leads to subsequent use of therapeutic content or vice versa. This study aimed to determine the causal relationship between the social networking and therapeutic components of Horyzons.
METHODS: Participants comprised 82 young people (16-27 years) recovering from first-episode psychosis. Multiple convergent cross mapping was used to test causality, as a secondary analysis of the Horyzons intervention. Multiple convergent cross mapping tested the direction of the relationship between each pair of social and therapeutic system usage variables on Horyzons, using longitudinal usage data.
RESULTS: Results indicated that the social networking aspects of Horyzons were most engaging. Posting on the social network drove engagement with all therapeutic components (r=0.06-0.36). Reacting to social network posts drove engagement with all therapeutic components (r=0.39-0.65). Commenting on social network posts drove engagement with most therapeutic components (r=0.11-0.18). Liking social network posts drove engagement with most therapeutic components (r=0.09-0.17). However, starting a therapy pathway led to commenting on social network posts (r=0.05) and liking social network posts (r=0.06), and completing a therapy action led to commenting on social network posts (r=0.14) and liking social network posts (r=0.15).
CONCLUSIONS: The online social network was a key driver of long-term engagement with the Horyzons intervention and fostered engagement with key therapeutic components and ingredients of the intervention. Online social networks can be further leveraged to engage young people with therapeutic content to ensure treatment effects are maintained and to create virtuous cycles between all intervention components to maintain engagement.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12614000009617; https://www.australianclinicaltrials.gov.au/anzctr/trial/ACTRN12614000009617.

Keywords

References

  1. JMIR Ment Health. 2022 Apr 7;9(4):e29211 [PMID: 35389351]
  2. Schizophr Res. 2013 Jan;143(1):143-9 [PMID: 23146146]
  3. Front Psychol. 2017 Jun 02;8:796 [PMID: 28626431]
  4. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2019 Aug;22(8):535-542 [PMID: 31361508]
  5. BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 19;9(2):e024104 [PMID: 30782893]
  6. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2016 Jan;51(1):1-13 [PMID: 26498752]
  7. Am Psychol. 2000 Jan;55(1):68-78 [PMID: 11392867]
  8. Schizophr Res. 2018 Dec;202:369-377 [PMID: 30031616]
  9. Front Psychiatry. 2017 May 03;8:72 [PMID: 28515699]
  10. Digit Health. 2022 Jun 1;8:20552076221098268 [PMID: 35677785]
  11. Psychol Psychother. 2022 Mar;95(1):155-172 [PMID: 34252267]
  12. Evid Based Ment Health. 2018 Aug;21(3):116-119 [PMID: 29871870]
  13. Schizophr Res. 2014 Jun;156(1):96-106 [PMID: 24746468]
  14. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2018 Aug;12(4):613-625 [PMID: 27311581]
  15. Science. 2012 Oct 26;338(6106):496-500 [PMID: 22997134]
  16. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Jan 08;18(1):e6 [PMID: 26747176]
  17. World Psychiatry. 2021 Jun;20(2):233-243 [PMID: 34002511]
  18. Schizophr Bull. 1987;13(2):261-76 [PMID: 3616518]
  19. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 26;22(6):e17570 [PMID: 32384056]
  20. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Mar 31;112(13):E1569-76 [PMID: 25733874]
  21. J Med Internet Res. 2008 Apr 16;10(2):e10 [PMID: 18417443]
  22. J Med Internet Res. 2018 Jun 06;20(6):e199 [PMID: 29875089]
  23. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Aug 13;22(8):e17155 [PMID: 32788151]
  24. Artif Intell Med. 2021 May;115:102062 [PMID: 34001322]
  25. J Abnorm Psychol. 1971 Aug;78(1):107-26 [PMID: 4938262]
  26. Schizophr Bull. 1996;22(2):305-26 [PMID: 8782288]
  27. Annu Rev Psychol. 1997;48:61-83 [PMID: 15012476]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0socialtherapeuticengagementcomponentsnetworkr=0postsdigitalHoryzonsinterventionhealthmentalkeydroveinterventionsnetworksyoungpeoplecontentnetworkingusageimprovemayengagingengagerecoveringfirst-episodepsychosisHoweveruserelationshipMultipleconvergentcrossmappingdatatherapyledcommentinglikingEngagementBACKGROUND:LowratesmajorchallengefieldMulticomponentaimaddingAlthoughsufficientclinicaloutcomesleadusersThereforeneedunderstanddriveoveralldrivesOBJECTIVE:18-monthincorporatingprivateunclearwhetherleadssubsequentviceversastudyaimeddeterminecausalMETHODS:Participantscomprised8216-27yearsusedtestcausalitysecondaryanalysistesteddirectionpairsystemvariablesusinglongitudinalRESULTS:ResultsindicatedaspectsPosting06-036Reacting39-065Commenting11-018Liking09-017startingpathway0506completingaction1415CONCLUSIONS:onlinedriverlong-termfosteredingredientsOnlinecanleveragedensuretreatmenteffectsmaintainedcreatevirtuouscyclesmaintainTRIALREGISTRATION:AustralianNewZealandClinicalTrialsRegistry:ACTRN12614000009617https://wwwaustralianclinicaltrialsgovau/anzctr/trial/ACTRN12614000009617UnderstandingDrivesLong-termDigitalMentalHealthInterventions:SecondaryCausalAnalysisRelationshipSocialNetworkingTherapylogpsychoticdisordersmetricsyouth

Similar Articles

Cited By