Evidence mapPaperPMID 41880606Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2026

Determinants of the Uptake and Frequency of Use of a Web Portal Digital Health Intervention in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and/or Coronary Heart Disease: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Maximilian Scholl, Claas Lendt, Sebastian Appelbaum, Bianca Biallas, Katja Brenk-Franz, Chloé Chermette, Friederike Frank, Angeli Gawlik, Lisa Giesen, Martina Heßbrügge and 7 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Maximilian SchollInstitute of Movement Therapy and Movement-oriented Prevention and Rehabilitation, Section I, German Sports University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-1180-2416
Claas LendtInstitute of Movement Therapy and Movement-oriented Prevention and Rehabilitation, Section I, German Sports University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4299-4739
Sebastian AppelbaumDepartment of Psychology and Psychotherapy, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4674-2486
Bianca BiallasInstitute of Movement Therapy and Movement-oriented Prevention and Rehabilitation, Section I, German Sports University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3026-5857
Katja Brenk-FranzInstitute of Psychosocial Medicine, Psychotherapy and Psychooncology, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7664-8087
Chloé ChermetteInstitute of Psychology, Section I: Health and Social Psychology, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5999-0868
Friederike FrankInstitute for Digitalization and General Medicine, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-3404-3112
Angeli GawlikInstitute of Psychology, Section I: Health and Social Psychology, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5493-6785
Lisa GiesenInstitute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1900-5480
Martina HeßbrüggeInstitute of General Practice, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-5975-4331
Lucas KüppersInstitute of Family Medicine and General Practice, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-9253-3020
Larisa PilicInstitute of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6410-1642
Marcus RedaèlliInstitute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8830-1999
Lara SchneiderDepartment of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-4949-8452
Frank VitiniusDepartment of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4685-4189
Stefan WilmInstitute of General Practice, Centre for Health and Society, Medical Faculty and University Hospital, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1266-5064
Uwe KonerdingDepartment of Psychology and Psychotherapy, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6993-5977

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The targeted application and design of digital health interventions (DHIs) require an understanding of usage determinants. Usage includes uptake (initial use) and frequency (extent of use), but it is unclear whether both components are driven by the same determinants. Objective: This study aimed to examine the determinants of uptake and frequency of use and assess whether they differ. Methods: The investigated DHI was a web portal provided in an intervention for improving disease-related self-management. This study is a secondary analysis of intervention group data from a parallel-group randomized controlled trial. Eligibility criteria were being an adult and being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and/or coronary heart disease. Sociodemographic, psychological, and health-related variables were examined as determinants. Determinants were analyzed using simple and multiple regression models. Uptake was analyzed using logistic regression, and frequency was analyzed using negative binomial regression with robust SEs. Frequency was analyzed for those who used the DHI at least once. Except for sociodemographic variables, all other variables were standardized to a range from 0 to 1. For simple regression, inflation of the α error due to multiple testing was controlled via the approach of Benjamini and Hochberg, and for multiple regression, it was controlled via the significance of the complete multiple regression model. Results: Of 462 intervention group members, 199 (43.1%) used the web portal at least once. After controlling for inflation of the α error, simple regression for uptake yielded significant effects for higher education (B=0.56, 95% CI 0.18-0.95; P=.004), openness (B=1.08, 95% CI 0.33-1.83; P=.005), intention regarding physical activity (B=2.28, 95% CI 1.30-3.26; P<.001), and intention regarding healthy nutrition (B=2.30, 95% CI 1.30-3.31; P<.001). The multiple regression model for uptake was highly significant (P<.001), with significant positive associations for intentions regarding physical activity (B=1.86, 95% CI 0.74-2.97; P=.001) and healthy nutrition (B=2.22, 95% CI 1.00-3.44; P<.001), as well as a significant negative association for patient activation (B=-3.20, 95% CI -4.95 to -1.46; P<.001). After controlling for inflation of the α error, simple regression for frequency yielded no statistically significant effect, and the multiple regression model for frequency was not significant (P=.07). Conclusions: This study is innovative in jointly examining determinants of the uptake and frequency of use of the same DHI within a single context and sample. By demonstrating that factors driving uptake do not necessarily increase the frequency of use, it advances existing research. The study contributes to a more differentiated understanding of DHI use and shows that distinct strategies are required to promote adoption versus sustained engagement. Applying this approach to other DHIs and settings may support more targeted and equitable digital health implementation in real-world contexts, thereby optimizing digital health deployment strategies overall.

Indexed as

Coronary DiseaseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2InternetPatient PortalsAgedDigital HealthFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSecondary Data AnalysisSelf Carechronic disease self-managementcoronary heart diseasedigital health interventionseHealthpredictors of usetype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID41880606
PMCPMC13016439

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.