Trial reportJMIR mHealth and uHealth2025
Completion and Compliance Rates for an Intensive mHealth Study Design to Promote Self-Awareness and Self-Care Among Care Partners of Individuals With Traumatic Brain Injury: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Telemedicine App for Nonrigid Facial Rehabilitation Training Enhanced by Efficient Fully Convolutional Neural Network With Residual Network (EffiFCNN-ResNet) to Improve Accessibility for Patients With Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Cancer: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Trial
- National implementation of a digital Parkinson's disease screening programme in Thailand: reach, adoption, and real-world performance of the CheckPD app.BMC public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Compliance rates for mobile health (mHealth) studies that involve intensive study designs are highly variable. Both person- and study-specific factors likely contribute to this variability. We were interested in understanding the impact that care partner characteristics and demographics have on study engagement, given that engagement is critical to the success of mHealth interventions. Objective: The primary objective of this report was to analyze the overall and component-specific completion and compliance rates for an intensive 6-month mHealth intervention (CareQOL app) designed to promote self-awareness and self-care among care partners of individuals with traumatic brain injury. Methods: This randomized controlled trial was designed to test the CareQOL app, an mHealth app designed to promote care partner self-awareness (through self-monitoring) and self-care (through personalized self-care push notifications). The study design consisted of a baseline assessment, a 6-month home-monitoring period that included 3 daily ecological momentary assessment (EMA) questions, monthly patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys, continuous activity and sleep monitoring using a Fitbit, and 2 follow-up PRO surveys at 3 and 6 months posthome monitoring. Three participants withdrew prior to the initiation of the home-monitoring period, resulting in a final analytical sample size of 254. All participants had access to a self-monitoring dashboard (CareQOL app) that included graphical displays of the daily survey scores, as well as daily steps and sleep data from the Fitbit. Results: Overall compliance for the different aspects of the study was high. On average, the full-sample daily EMA PRO completion rate was 84% (SD 19%), Fitbit-based step count compliance was 90% (SD 21%), and Fitbit-based sleep duration compliance was 75% (SD 32%); there was no difference between the study arms for daily EMA PROs and Fitbit compliance rates. Completion rates for monthly and follow-up PRO surveys were even higher, with average end-of-month completion rates ranging from 97% to 100%, and follow-up completion rates of 95% for both time points. Again, these rates did not differ by study arm. The data were represented by 3 engagement groups: high-compliance-all data; high-compliance-PROs and steps only; and moderate PRO compliance-low Fitbit compliance. Group membership was predicted by both race (P<.001) and relationship to the care recipient (P=.001), but not by the other person-specific variables. Conclusions: The compliance rates for this intensive study design are consistent, but at the high end, with what has been reported previously in the literature for studies with shorter time durations. Except for race and relationship to the care recipient, person-specific factors did not appear to be significantly associated with the engagement group. As such, we anticipate that the high compliance rates observed in this study are likely due to several study-specific design elements that were used to encourage study engagement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.