Measuring Engagement in Provider-Guided Digital Health Interventions With a Conceptual and Analytical Framework Using Nurse WRITE as an Exemplar: Exploratory Study With an Iterative Approach.

Background: Limited guidance exists for analyzing participant engagement in provider-guided digital health interventions (DHIs). System usage is commonly assessed, with acknowledged limitations in measuring socio-affective and cognitive aspects of engagement. Nurse WRITE, an 8-week web-based nurse-guided DHI for managing symptoms among women with recurrent ovarian cancer, offers an opportunity to develop a framework for assessing multidimensional engagement.

Objective: This study aims to develop a conceptual and analytic framework to measure socio-affective, cognitive, and behavioral engagement with provider-guided DHIs. We then illustrate the framework's ability to describe and categorize engagement using Nurse WRITE as an example.

Methods: A sample of 68 participants from Nurse WRITE who posted on the message boards were included. We adapted a prior framework for conceptualizing and operationalizing engagement across 3 dimensions and finalized a set of 6 distinct measures. Using patients' posts, we created 2 socio-affective engagement measures-total count of socio-affective engagement classes (eg, sharing personal experience) and total word count-and 2 cognitive engagement measures-total count of cognitive engagement classes (eg, asking information-seeking questions) and average question completion percentage. Additionally, we devised behavioral engagement measures using website data-the total count of symptom care plans and plan reviews. k-Means clustering categorized the participants into distinct groups based on levels of engagement across 3 dimensions. Descriptive statistics and narratives were used to describe engagement in 3 dimensions.

Results: On average, participants displayed socio-affective engagement 34.7 times, writing 14,851 words. They showed cognitive engagement 19.4 times, with an average of 78.3% completion of nurses' inquiries. Participants also submitted an average of 1.6 symptom care plans and 0.7 plan reviews. Participants were clustered into high (n=13), moderate (n=17), and low engagers (n=38) based on the 6 measures. High engagers wrote a median of 36,956 (IQR 26,199-46,265) words. They demonstrated socio-affective engagement approximately 81 times and cognitive engagement around 46 times, approximately 6 times that of the low engagers and twice that of the moderate engagers. High engagers had a median of 91.7% (IQR 82.2%-93.7%) completion of the nurses' queries, whereas moderate engagers had 86.4% (IQR 80%-96.4%), and low engagers had 68.3% (IQR 60.1%-79.6%). High engagers completed a median of 3 symptom care plans and 2 reviews, while moderate engagers completed 2 plans and 1 review. Low engagers completed a median of 1 plan with no reviews.

Conclusions: This study developed and reported an engagement framework to guide behavioral intervention scientists in understanding and analyzing participants' engagement with provider-guided DHIs. Significant variations in engagement levels across 3 dimensions highlight the importance of measuring engagement with provider-guided DHIs in socio-affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions. Future studies should validate the framework with other DHIs, explore the influence of patient and provider factors on engagement, and investigate how engagement influences intervention efficacy.