Designing these types of solutions requires designers to ensure that technological interventions (such as health apps and web-based platforms) not only are effective and usable but also have the potential to actively immerse consumers and users in its content ( Couper et al., 2010). Positive organizational interventions that focus on harnessing and improving individuals' strengths to increase employees' well-being, and organizational outcomes are examples that have begun to gain more attention ( Winslow et al., 2017 Salanova and Ortega-Maldonado, 2019). Behavior, cognition, and affect are important components of engagement and should be specified for each new context.ĭeveloping scalable, cost-effective, and efficient technological solutions to enhance the general health and well-being of individuals has become vital within today's digital economy ( Stander and van Zyl, 2019). Despite this, engagement is foremost seen as a state of being engaged in/with something, which is part of, but should not be confused with, the process of engagement. Although engagement is prolifically used in different disciplines, it is evident that little shared consensus as to its conceptualization within and between domains exists. Further, engagement was found to be predominantly conceptualized as a multidimensional construct with three common components (behavior, cognition, and affective) shared between domains. It seems that some domains are more mature regarding their conceptualization and theorizing on engagement than others. The results showed that engagement is used in seven functional domains, categorized as follows: student ( n = 18), customer ( n = 12), health ( n = 11), society ( n = 10), work ( n = 9), digital ( n = 8), and transdisciplinary ( n = 1) domains.
This led to 69 articles being included for further analyses.
#Sononym of components full#
All titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. A search of five bibliographic databases yielded 1,231 unique records. A comprehensive systematic scoping review of the existing literature was conducted in order to identify the domains in which engagement is used, to extract the associated definitions of engagement, and to identify the dimensionality or components thereof. As such, the aim of this paper was 3-fold: (a) to investigate in which domains engagement features, (b) to determine what constitutes engagement in these different domains, and (c) to determine whether there are any common components that seem to be important. Given the cross-disciplinary use of the term “engagement,” investigating how engagement (and its components) is conceptualized in different domains could lead to determining common components that are deemed important for eHealth technological design. A clearer understanding of engagement could provide a valuable starting point for guidelines relating to the design and development of eHealth technologies. Within the context of eHealth interventions, a shared understanding of what constitutes engagement in and with eHealth technologies is missing. 6Department of Design, Production and Management, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
5Institut für Psychologie, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.4Department of Human Resource Management, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.3Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Eindhoven, Eindhoven, Netherlands.2Optentia Research Focus Area, North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa.1Department of Psychology, Health and Technology, Centre for eHealth and Wellbeing Research, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.Kelders 1,2 *, Llewellyn Ellardus van Zyl 2,3,4,5 and Geke D.
0 kommentar(er)
