pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16276 · v1 · pith:MXLIODSMnew · submitted 2026-04-08 · 💻 cs.HC

Designing for Engagement: How Self-Determination Theory Can Guide Digital Health Design for User Motivation

Zheyuan Zhang , Rafael A. Calvo This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 09:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords self-determination theorydigital healthuser engagementgamificationmotivationdesign frameworkmental healthbehavior change
0
0 comments X

The pith

Digital health designs should separate strategies that build intrinsic motivation from those supporting autonomous extrinsic motivation instead of grouping them under gamification.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a preliminary framework grounded in Self-Determination Theory and its sub-theory Organismic Integration Theory to organize design choices for digital health interventions. Drawing on survey responses from 438 users, interviews with 31, and co-design input from 59, it maps strategies across adoption, interface, and task aspects of the experience into two groups: those that primarily foster intrinsic motivation and those that foster autonomous forms of extrinsic motivation. The central argument is that these pathways differ in how they support sustained engagement, so designs and evaluations must treat them distinctly rather than treating all game-like features as interchangeable. If the distinction holds, interventions can move beyond short-term uptake to support the internalization of health behaviors over time.

Core claim

The paper presents a framework that applies Self-Determination Theory and Organismic Integration Theory to categorize digital health design strategies into those supporting intrinsic motivation and those supporting autonomous extrinsic motivation across the adoption, interface, and task spheres of user experience, based on literature and empirical data from surveys, interviews, and workshops; it claims this separation is required because strategies often labeled gamification operate through separate motivational channels and must be designed and evaluated accordingly to promote both initial adoption and long-term internalization of health behaviors.

What carries the argument

The SDT-OIT categorization of design strategies into intrinsic motivation pathways versus autonomous extrinsic motivation pathways, applied across adoption, interface, and task spheres.

If this is right

  • Designers can select and combine elements according to the specific motivational channel they intend to activate.
  • Evaluation metrics should track internalization and autonomous regulation separately rather than relying on aggregate engagement scores.
  • Interventions built this way are expected to produce longer-lasting behavior change than those using undifferentiated gamification tactics.
  • The framework offers a shared language for researchers to compare and refine strategies across different health domains.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same motivational distinction could be tested in non-health domains such as educational or productivity tools where sustained use matters.
  • Randomized trials that assign users to matched versus mismatched strategy sets would provide direct evidence for the framework's practical value.
  • The approach raises questions about how interface elements interact with individual differences in motivation orientation over extended periods.

Load-bearing premise

The survey, interview, and workshop data together with existing literature yield a stable and generalizable distinction between intrinsic and autonomous extrinsic motivational pathways.

What would settle it

A study that measures internalization of health behaviors and finds no reliable difference between users exposed to strategies classified as intrinsic versus autonomous extrinsic under the framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16276 by Rafael A. Calvo, Zheyuan Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A preliminary framework on how design strategies can drive short- and long-term user engagement in digital health [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Six different ways motivation to an activity can be regulated, based on SDT and OIT. Adapted from [15] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

User engagement is crucial for the efficacy of digital health and mental health interventions, yet existing design strategies for improving engagement remain heterogeneous, context-specific, and insufficiently grounded in motivational theory. In this paper, we propose a preliminary, theory-grounded design framework that draws on Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and its sub-theory, Organismic Integration Theory (OIT), to guide the design of digital health interventions for sustained user engagement. Informed by existing literature and our own empirical data from surveys (N = 438), interviews (N = 31), and co-design workshops (N = 59) with end users, the framework categorises design strategies across the adoption, interface, and task spheres of the user experience, distinguishing between those that primarily support intrinsic motivation and those that foster autonomous forms of extrinsic motivation. We argue that this distinction is critical: strategies commonly grouped under umbrella terms such as "gamification" in fact operate through different motivational channels and should be designed and evaluated accordingly. By clarifying these motivational pathways, our framework aims to support researchers and practitioners in designing digital health interventions that not only facilitate initial uptake but also enhance the internalisation of health behaviours for long-term, sustained engagement. We present this framework as a basis for discussion at this workshop, inviting expert feedback and critique to refine it as a contribution to the field.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a preliminary, theory-grounded design framework for digital health interventions that draws on Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Organismic Integration Theory (OIT). Informed by a literature synthesis plus empirical data from a survey (N=438), interviews (N=31), and co-design workshops (N=59), the framework categorizes strategies across adoption, interface, and task spheres into those primarily supporting intrinsic motivation versus those fostering autonomous extrinsic motivation. The central claim is that strategies commonly grouped under 'gamification' operate through distinct motivational channels and should therefore be designed and evaluated separately to promote sustained engagement and internalization of health behaviors.

Significance. If the proposed distinction proves stable, the framework could offer a useful advance over generic gamification prescriptions by supplying a theoretically differentiated lens for digital health design. The multi-method user involvement (survey, interview, workshop) alongside existing SDT literature is a constructive step toward practical guidance. The paper correctly identifies that umbrella terms obscure important motivational differences, and the preliminary framing for workshop discussion is appropriate.

major comments (2)
  1. [Empirical Mapping] Empirical Mapping section: The assignment of specific strategies to intrinsic versus autonomous-extrinsic categories rests on interpretive synthesis of self-report and co-design data. No longitudinal engagement metrics, behavioral outcome measures, or experimental contrasts between the two categories are reported to test whether the distinction predicts differential internalization or sustained use. This interpretive step is load-bearing for the abstract's claim that the pathways 'should be designed and evaluated accordingly.'
  2. [Methods] Methods: The process by which survey responses, interview transcripts, and workshop outputs were coded and mapped onto SDT/OIT constructs is not described in sufficient detail (e.g., coding scheme, inter-rater procedures, or handling of discrepant cases). Without this transparency the stability and reproducibility of the resulting categorization cannot be assessed.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that the framework is 'preliminary' is appropriate but could be paired with an explicit note on the current absence of behavioral validation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments on our preliminary framework. We address each major comment below. The manuscript is positioned as an initial, discussion-oriented contribution rather than a fully validated model, which shapes our responses.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Empirical Mapping] Empirical Mapping section: The assignment of specific strategies to intrinsic versus autonomous-extrinsic categories rests on interpretive synthesis of self-report and co-design data. No longitudinal engagement metrics, behavioral outcome measures, or experimental contrasts between the two categories are reported to test whether the distinction predicts differential internalization or sustained use. This interpretive step is load-bearing for the abstract's claim that the pathways 'should be designed and evaluated accordingly.'

    Authors: We agree that the framework relies on interpretive synthesis rather than direct experimental or longitudinal validation of differential outcomes. As a preliminary framework developed for workshop discussion, our intent was to integrate SDT/OIT theory with user perspectives from the survey, interviews, and co-design sessions to generate testable hypotheses about motivational pathways, not to claim empirical proof of differential internalization. We will revise the manuscript to (1) add an explicit limitations subsection clarifying the interpretive basis and the absence of longitudinal or experimental data, (2) temper language in the abstract and discussion to present the distinction as a proposed categorization to be tested in future work rather than an established finding, and (3) include recommendations for how subsequent studies could evaluate the framework using behavioral metrics. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods: The process by which survey responses, interview transcripts, and workshop outputs were coded and mapped onto SDT/OIT constructs is not described in sufficient detail (e.g., coding scheme, inter-rater procedures, or handling of discrepant cases). Without this transparency the stability and reproducibility of the resulting categorization cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We accept this criticism and will substantially expand the Methods section in the revised manuscript. The update will include: a description of how the initial coding scheme was derived from SDT and OIT constructs; details on the iterative coding process applied to survey open responses, interview transcripts, and workshop artifacts; inter-rater reliability statistics (e.g., percentage agreement and Cohen’s kappa); and the procedure for resolving discrepant cases through consensus discussion among the research team. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; framework applies established external SDT/OIT constructs to new empirical data

full rationale

The paper's derivation integrates pre-existing Self-Determination Theory and Organismic Integration Theory (cited from the literature, not originated by these authors) with original survey, interview, and workshop data to produce an interpretive categorization of design strategies. No equations, fitted parameters, self-definitional loops, or load-bearing self-citations reduce any claimed distinction or prediction to a quantity defined by the authors' own prior work. The central claim that gamification strategies operate through different motivational channels rests on the external theoretical framework plus new user data rather than tautological mapping or renaming of known results within the paper itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the standard axioms of Self-Determination Theory (innate needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness) and the assumption that these needs can be directly mapped to concrete interface and task design choices; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Humans possess innate psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness that, when supported, promote intrinsic motivation and internalisation of extrinsic motives.
    Invoked throughout the abstract as the theoretical foundation for distinguishing motivational pathways.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5774 in / 1330 out tokens · 35074 ms · 2026-05-21T09:27:39.204257+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lize Alberts, Ulrik Lyngs, and Kai Lukoff. [n. d.]. Designing for Sustained Motiva- tion: A Review of Self-Determination Theory in Behaviour Change Technologies. ([n. d.])

    work page

  2. [2]

    Daniel Bennett and Elisa D. Mekler. 2024. Beyond Intrinsic Motivation: The Role of Autonomous Motivation in User Experience.ACM Transactions on Computer- Human Interaction31, 5 (2024), 1–41. doi:10.1145/3689044

    work page doi:10.1145/3689044 2024

  3. [3]

    Judith Borghouts, Elizabeth Eikey, Gloria Mark, Cinthia De Leon, Stephen M Schueller, Margaret Schneider, Nicole Stadnick, Kai Zheng, Dana Mukamel, and Dara H Sorkin. 2021. Barriers to and Facilitators of User Engagement With Digital Mental Health Interventions: Systematic Review.Journal of Medical Internet Research23, 3 (2021), e24387. doi:10.2196/24387

    work page doi:10.2196/24387 2021

  4. [4]

    Boucher and Joseph S

    Eliane M. Boucher and Joseph S. Raiker. 2024. Engagement and retention in digital mental health interventions: a narrative review.BMC Digital Health2, 1 (2024), 52. doi:10.1186/s44247-024-00105-9

    work page doi:10.1186/s44247-024-00105-9 2024

  5. [5]

    Stephany Carolan and Richard O De Visser. 2018. Employees’ Perspectives on the Facilitators and Barriers to Engaging With Digital Mental Health Interventions in the Workplace: Qualitative Study.JMIR Mental Health5, 1 (2018), e8. doi:10. 2196/mental.9146

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Ainslie Forbes, Madeline Rose Keleher, Michael Venditto, and Faith DiBiasi. 2023. Assessing Patient Adherence to and Engagement With Digital Interventions for Depression in Clinical Trials: Systematic Literature Review.Journal of Medical Internet Research25 (2023), e43727. doi:10.2196/43727 Designing for Engagement: How Self-Determination Theory Can Guide...

    work page doi:10.2196/43727 2023

  7. [7]

    Daniel Z Q Gan, Lauren McGillivray, Mark E Larsen, Helen Christensen, and Michelle Torok. 2022. Technology-supported strategies for promoting user en- gagement with digital mental health interventions: A systematic review.DIGITAL HEALTH8 (2022), 205520762210982. doi:10.1177/20552076221098268

    work page doi:10.1177/20552076221098268 2022

  8. [8]

    Alice Grady, Nicole Pearson, Hannah Lamont, Lucy Leigh, Luke Wolfenden, Courtney Barnes, Rebecca Wyse, Meghan Finch, Matthew Mclaughlin, Tessa Delaney, Rachel Sutherland, Rebecca Hodder, and Sze Lin Yoong. 2023. The Effectiveness of Strategies to Improve User Engagement With Digital Health Interventions Targeting Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Overweig...

    work page doi:10.2196/47987 2023

  9. [9]

    Jacinta Jardine, Camille Nadal, Sarah Robinson, Angel Enrique, Marcus Hanratty, and Gavin Doherty. 2023. Between Rhetoric and Reality: Real-world Barriers to Uptake and Early Engagement in Digital Mental Health Interventions.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction(2023), 3635472. doi:10.1145/3635472

    work page doi:10.1145/3635472 2023

  10. [10]

    Shaun Liverpool, Catarina Pinheiro Mota, Célia M D Sales, Anja Čuš, Sara Carletto, Camellia Hancheva, Sónia Sousa, Sonia Conejo Cerón, Patricia Moreno-Peral, Giada Pietrabissa, Bettina Moltrecht, Randi Ulberg, Nuno Ferreira, and Julian Edbrooke-Childs. 2020. Engaging Children and Young People in Digital Mental Health Interventions: Systematic Review of Mo...

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    Calvo, and Richard M

    Dorian Peters, Rafael A. Calvo, and Richard M. Ryan. 2018. Designing for Moti- vation, Engagement and Wellbeing in Digital Experience.Frontiers in Psychology 9 (2018), 797. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00797

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00797 2018

  12. [12]

    Nikita B Rajani, Luz Bustamante, Dominik Weth, Lucia Romo, Nikolaos Mastellos, and Filippos T Filippidis. 2023. Engagement With Gamification Elements in a Smoking Cessation App and Short-term Smoking Abstinence: Quantitative Assessment.JMIR Serious Games11 (2023), e39975. doi:10.2196/39975

    work page doi:10.2196/39975 2023

  13. [13]

    The Oxford handbook of self-determination the- ory, 124–138 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780197600047.001.0001 20

    Richard M. Ryan (Ed.). 2023.The Oxford Handbook of Self-Determination Theory. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197600047.001.0001

    work page doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197600047.001.0001 2023

  14. [14]

    Ryan and Edward L

    Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci. 2000. Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist(2000)

    work page 2000

  15. [15]

    Ryan and Edward L

    Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci. 2018.Self-determination theory: basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. The Guilford Press, New York London

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    Maham Saleem, Lisa Kühne, Karina Karolina De Santis, Lara Christianson, Tilman Brand, and Heide Busse. 2021. Understanding Engagement Strategies in Digital Interventions for Mental Health Promotion: Scoping Review.JMIR Mental Health 8, 12 (2021), e30000. doi:10.2196/30000

    work page doi:10.2196/30000 2021

  17. [17]

    Marisa Venter. 2022. Online programming learning platform: The influence of gamification elements. In2022 IEEE IFEES World Engineering Education Fo- rum - Global Engineering Deans Council (WEEF-GEDC). 1–6. doi:10.1109/WEEF- GEDC54384.2022.9996263

    work page doi:10.1109/weef- 2022

  18. [18]

    Intan Yusrina Zairon, Tengku Siti Meriam Tengku Wook, Syahanim Mohd Salleh, and Hadi Affendy Dahlan. 2023. Gamification Adaptive Elements in Vir- tual Learning to Improve Behaviour and Collaborative Interaction. In2023 In- ternational Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICEEI). 1–6. doi:10.1109/ICEEI59426.2023.10346688

    work page doi:10.1109/iceei59426.2023.10346688 2023

  19. [19]

    Zheyuan Zhang, Dorian Peters, Lan Xiao, Jingjing Sun, Laura Moradbakhti, Andrew Hall, and Rafael A Calvo. 2026. Understanding Workplace Relatedness Support among Healthcare Professionals: A Four-Layer Model and Implications for Technology Design

    work page 2026

  20. [20]

    Zheyuan Zhang, Jingjing Sun, Dorian Peters, and Rafael A Calvo. 2025. Beyond Wellbeing Apps: Co-Designing Immersive, Embodied, and Collective Digital Wellbeing Interventions for Healthcare Professionals

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Zheyuan Zhang, Sijin Sun, Laura Moradbakhti, Andrew Hall, Celine Mougenot, Juan Chen, and Rafael A Calvo. 2025. Health Care Professionals’ Engagement With Digital Mental Health Interventions in the United Kingdom and China: Mixed Methods Study on Engagement Factors and Design Implications.JMIR Mental Health12 (2025), e67190–e67190. doi:10.2196/67190

    work page doi:10.2196/67190 2025