JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Engagement is a necessary precondition for the effectiveness of mobile health (mHealth) apps for long-term physical health conditions (LTCs), particularly as health systems increasingly prioritize the deployment of scalable, self-guided digital interventions. Outside controlled research settings where clinician involvement often drives engagement, little is known about whether, how, and why people engage with mHealth apps based on intrinsic motivation alone. Existing systematic reviews have cataloged behavioral engagement indicators but rarely assess mechanisms underlying engagement.

Objective:

This meta-review aimed to (1) synthesize evidence on how engagement with mHealth apps for LTCs is defined, measured, and associated with health outcomes, (2) explore intrinsic and extrinsic motivational processes underlying engagement, and (3) provide practical guidance for developing scalable, user-centered digital health interventions that support sustained engagement with minimal reliance on external input. Uniquely, we interpreted modifiable barriers and facilitators through a motivational lens that distinguishes extrinsic from intrinsic motives, mapping intrinsic motives onto autonomy, competence, and relatedness as proposed by Self-Determination Theory (SDT).

Methods:

: Searches of Medline, Web of Science, Epistemonikos, and gray literature (inception–June 9, 2025) identified systematic reviews reporting engagement indicators, engagement–outcome associations, or barriers/facilitators among adults with LTCs. Quantitative reviews were appraised using AMSTAR2 and qualitative and mixed-methods reviews using CASP. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, and modifiable barriers and facilitators were independently mapped by two reviewers to extrinsic and intrinsic motivation and, for intrinsic factors, to the SDT constructs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness; discrepancies were resolved through discussion with the wider research team.

Results:

Nineteen reviews (12 quantitative, 5 mixed-methods, 2 qualitative) were included from 4,684 records. Fourteen (74%) did not define engagement and the remaining five equated it with ‘usage’ or ‘adherence’, precluding meta-analysis. Fourteen reviews reported micro-level behavioral indicators, but none captured macro-level nor effective engagement. Eight assessed engagement–outcome links; seven reported positive associations, one no effect. Seven reviews included non-modifiable factors that influence engagement (e.g., ethnicity), while 13 included modifiable factors. SDT mapping revealed that modifiable factors influencing autonomy (e.g., personal relevance, flexibility), competence (e.g., usability, technical support), and relatedness (e.g., clinician endorsement, peer connection) underpin intrinsic engagement, whereas extrinsic barriers include restrictions to access (including cost).

Conclusions:

Current evidence on engagement with mHealth apps remains conceptually inconsistent and methodologically fragmented, but motivational patterns are clear: sustained engagement depends largely on intrinsic motives once external conditions are satisfied. Applying SDT provides the first mechanism-oriented explanation of how engagement operates, enabling practical recommendations for evaluating existing apps and designing future mHealth interventions that support autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Clinical Trial: PROSPERO CRD42024604784; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=604784