Using Group Chats to Drive Behavior Change in Digital Health Interventions: Scoping Review and Realist Synthesis.

Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice J Med Internet Res . 2026 Apr 13;28:e88911. doi: 10.2196/88911 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search Using Group Chats to Drive Behavior Change in Digital Health Interventions: Scoping Review and Realist Synthesis Hein Thu Hein Thu , MPH 1 Burma Academy, Yangon, Myanmar Find articles by Hein Thu 1 , Felicia Jia Hui Chan Felicia Jia Hui Chan , MSc 2 Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Tahir Foundation Building, 12 Science Drive 2, #10-01, Singapore, 117549, Singapore, 65 87918862 Find articles by Felicia Jia Hui Chan 2 , Jumana Hashim Jumana Hashim , PhD 3 Behavioural and Implementation Science Interventions, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore Find articles by Jumana Hashim 3 , Shahmir H Ali Shahmir H Ali , PhD 2 Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Tahir Foundation Building, 12 Science Drive 2, #10-01, Singapore, 117549, Singapore, 65 87918862 Find articles by Shahmir H Ali 2, ✉ Editor: Stefano Brini Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Burma Academy, Yangon, Myanmar 2 Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Tahir Foundation Building, 12 Science Drive 2, #10-01, Singapore, 117549, Singapore, 65 87918862 3 Behavioural and Implementation Science Interventions, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore ✉ Shahmir H Ali, PhD, Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Tahir Foundation Building, 12 Science Drive 2, #10-01, Singapore, 117549, Singapore, 65 87918862; [email protected] Received 2025 Dec 3; Accepted 2026 Feb 25; Collection date 2026. Copyright © Hein Thu, Felicia Jia Hui Chan, Jumana Hashim, Shahmir H Ali. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org) This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (ISSN 1438-8871), is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/ , as well as this copyright and license information must be included. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13075640  PMID: 41973874 Abstract Background Group chats on platforms such as WhatsApp (Meta Platforms, Inc), WeChat (Tencent Holdings Limited), and Telegram (Telegram FZ-LLC) are central to everyday communication in many settings, including across low- and middle-income countries and among groups often overlooked by one-to-one or app-based digital health tools. Yet their roles and underlying mechanisms as intentionally designed health interventions have not been comprehensively examined. Objective This scoping review with realist synthesis aimed to map the characteristics and reported outcomes of group chat–based health interventions and contextual conditions shaping their outcomes. It mapped intervention characteristics and identified context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations driving behavior change. Methods We included empirical studies in which group chats were the primary digital component of the health intervention. Searches of PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus (2005‐2026) and reference screening identified eligible studies. Data were extracted on study characteristics, health domains, settings, participants, platform, intervention features, and outcome domains. For the realist synthesis, CMO configurations were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis informed by social cognitive theory and synthesized into a final program theory. Results Eighty-one studies were included. Publications increased sharply after 2020, with evidence clustering in mental health (25/81, 30.9%) and maternal and child health (20/81, 24.7%). Most studies enrolled adult participants, including pregnant or postpartum women, caregivers, and people managing chronic conditions. WhatsApp (38/81, 46.9%) and WeChat (21/81, 25.9%) were the most frequently studied platforms. Interventions were commonly delivered in clinical or community settings and typically involved mixed membership groups that included health professionals alongside participants (68/81, 84.0%). The realist synthesis identified 12 recurring CMO configurations across 5 domains: capability and actionability, confidence and motivation, modeling and norms, safe and supportive environment and access, and self-regulation and maintenance. These mechanisms were activated or suppressed by facilitation quality, group composition, cultural alignment, technological access, and social norms. The final program theory depicts group chats as dynamic systems where access, facilitation, and group structure shape how the domains amplify or dampen one another, explaining shifts from low engagement to high trust spaces sustaining behavior change. Conclusions This review integrates descriptive mapping of interventions with realist program theory to explain how context and facilitation activate mechanisms of change, unlike prior reviews that have focused narrowly on effectiveness of digital modalities. This dual approach provides a practical, mechanism-focused basis for designing and scaling group chat interventions in practice, particularly given their potential as a low-cost, high-reach strategy embeddable within broader digital health programs. Realizing this potential depends on treating group chats as purposefully designed social environments, with deliberate attention to facilitation quality, equity-oriented access, and alignment between group structure, norms, and communication practices. Introduction The global spread of smartphones, mobile internet, and messaging apps has normalized digital communication and reshaped health promotion and care delivery [ 1 ]. Digital tools now support prevention, screening, chronic care, and adherence at scale and low cost [ 2-4 ]. Social media expanded interactive engagement, and 5.5 billion people were online in 2024, about 68% of the global population [ 3 , 4 ]. Many reviews still pool disparate modalities such as apps, SMS, and social media under 1 digital health label, which obscures modality-specific mechanisms and user dynamics [ 5 ]. Relatedly, artificial intelligence (AI)–enabled conversational agents (chatbots) have also emerged as a rapidly growing approach in digital behavioral interventions, with recent syntheses reporting generally modest, heterogeneous effects across outcomes and highlighting ongoing considerations around safety, privacy, and governance in health contexts [ 6 ]. Given this expanding and heterogeneous landscape, a clearer emphasis on mechanisms is needed. Behavior change theories are often invoked to guide digital design and interpretation, for example, observational learning, social reinforcement, and self-efficacy, but many studies reference theory briefly and rarely test mechanisms within digital environments [ 7-11 ]. Realist synthesis has grown as a way to explain what works, for whom, in what contexts, and how, advancing context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) explanations for digital interventions [ 12-14 ], yet most syntheses remain modality agnostic (ie, do not disaggregate by technology type, such as apps vs SMS vs group chats), focus primarily on evidence from more complex, app-based interventions (which may be less translatable in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings where simpler messaging tools predominate), or lack intensive exploration of digital technologies that engage more complex forms of behavior change (ie, those involving social and community processes). Social media messaging has now become an integral part of the digital health landscape of many countries, particularly LMICs [ 15 ], where platforms such as WhatsApp (Meta Platforms, Inc), Telegram (Telegram FZ-LLC), Viber (Rakuten, Inc), Signal (Signal Technology Foundation), and WeChat (Tencent Holdings Limited) are widely used by patients and providers. More than 85% of physicians and nurses own smartphones or tablets, and 60% to 80% of clinical staff use text messaging for patient communication [ 16 ]. In LMIC settings, messaging apps have supported health education and COVID-19 response, and about 80% of households have mobile phone access [ 17 , 18 ]. At the same time, much recent innovation in digital behavioral interventions has focused on one-to-one formats, including conversational agents and AI-enabled chatbots that deliver tailored coaching through dyadic dialogue [ 19 ]. However, group chats are a qualitatively different intervention environment, as they are multiparty, relationship-embedded spaces where norms, privacy, and trust are coproduced in real time, so design lessons from one-to-one chatbot models may not translate directly. Within this ecosystem, group chats on WhatsApp, Telegram, WeChat, LINE (LINE Corporation), and Signal are multiuser threads that enable real-time, small-group, conversational interaction. This format differs from one-to-one messaging (the dominant configuration for most chatbot interventions), which is dyadic and linear, and from broadcast social media, which is asymmetric and feed-based. Participants exchange messages, images, and voice notes within semiprivate family, peer, or community networks, which affords familiarity, immediacy, and intimacy [ 20 , 21 ]. In many LMIC settings, group chats (particularly on platforms such as WhatsApp) are a particularly important part of the digital health environment [ 22 ]. Importantly, unlike other types of digital platforms, they often remain accessible to older adults and lower literacy users because they are low bandwidth and simple to use [ 20 , 23 ]. Compared with app-centric self-tracking or SMS reminders, group chats foreground interaction over individual logging and mirror offline support structures such as trust, reciprocity, and collective efficacy. Despite widespread everyday use, research on group chats has largely been observational [ 24 , 25 ], often focusing on understanding social support dynamics or how health information or misinformation spreads in these spaces. What is missing is a consolidated synthesis of group chats as a primary intervention platform. Evidence remains fragmented on where, how, and for whom group chats are used intentionally to deliver health content, coaching, or peer support, and on how facilitation, privacy, culture, and gender norms shape participation. This gap matters because group chats can engage populations that are often excluded by data-heavy or app-centric models and can better reflect the interpersonal and community networks that drive health behavior change. As noted in prior reviews, this is particularly important in LMIC contexts, where group chats embedded within familiar, everyday social messaging platforms may be more feasible and acceptable than standalone health apps, yet empirical evidence on their implementation and the mechanisms through which they operate remains limited and fragmented [ 26-28 ]. A focused synthesis is therefore needed to understand which design and delivery elements are transferable across diverse settings or require adaptation depending on contexts [ 29 ]. To address these gaps, this scoping review with realist synthesis aims to map and synthesize the existing literature on group chat–based health interventions and to explain how these interventions work in practice. Specifically, the scoping review describes the characteristics of group chat interventions across studies, including platform type, key design features, target populations, health domains, and geographic distribution, and summarizes the outcomes reported across behavioral, psychosocial, and clinical domains. The realist synthesis then explores the mechanisms and contextual conditions that shape engagement and behavior change, including facilitation style, group composition, trust, cultural norms, and platform features. Together, these approaches identify where evidence is concentrated, highlight key gaps, and offer an explanatory framework to inform the design and adaptation of future group chat interventions. Methods Study Design and Reporting Frameworks This review combined a scoping review with a realist synthesis to generate both descriptive and explanatory insights into group chat–based health interventions. The scoping review mapped the scope, characteristics, and distribution of the evidence base, including intervention design features, platforms, target populations, health domains, and settings. It also summarized the range of outcomes reported across studies, including behavioral, psychosocial, and clinical outcomes, to clarify what has been evaluated and where evidence remains limited. The realist synthesis complemented this by examining how and why group chat interventions achieved outcomes, drawing on qualitative, mixed methods, and process data to develop and refine program theories. The scoping review component was reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) [ 30 ]; the completed reporting checklist is provided in Checklist 1 . The search was reported in accordance with PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) [ 31 ]; the full search checklist and search strings are provided in Checklist 2 . The realist synthesis was reported in accordance with RAMESES II (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards II) standards [ 32 ]. The review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251082787) as a systematic review, but it was conducted as a scoping review to better reflect the mapping aims and breadth of the evidence. Quality appraisal was also planned initially using Cochrane RoB-1 and ROBINS-I. However, no formal critical appraisal or risk-of-bias assessment was conducted, as the scoping review aimed to map and characterize the evidence base rather than exclude studies based on study quality. Development of Initial Program Theories The Initial Program Theories (IPTs) outlined hypothesized pathways through which participation in group chats might have influenced health behavior. These IPTs were developed prior to data extraction and served as a starting framework for realist analysis, subsequently refined as evidence was synthesized. IPT development began with a scoping review of literature on digital health, peer support, and messaging-based interventions to identify recurring contexts (eg, facilitation, message cadence, and trust) and mechanisms (eg, modeling, reinforcement, accountability, and belonging). These insights were organized using social cognitive theory (SCT) [ 33 ], which was chosen as the guiding framework because it is an established and widely applied model for understanding mechanisms of behavior change in digital health interventions and for informing their design [ 34 ]. SCT links social interaction, observational learning, and reinforcement (core processes in group chat environments) to behavior change, providing a strong theoretical basis for explaining how digital communication can shape motivation, confidence, and action. Within this framework, constructs such as self-efficacy, observational learning, behavioral capability, reinforcement, environment, and self-regulation were mapped to the interpersonal and contextual dynamics of group chats. Provisional CMO propositions were then articulated to capture how design features and social processes might generate change; for example, how active facilitation could create accountability, or how peer similarity and trust might foster belonging and sustained engagement. The IPTs were refined through iterative team discussions involving researchers with expertise in behavioral science, digital health, and qualitative methods. Refinement emphasized theoretical coherence and cross-context relevance, particularly for LMIC settings where group chats are often the most accessible digital channel. Contextual barriers and facilitators were incorporated into a matrix accompanying the IPTs to support later analysis. The final framework, summarized in MultimediaAppendices 1 2 , identified 6 SCT-informed pathways linking group chat mechanisms to outcomes: behavioral capability, self-efficacy, environmental affordances, observational learning, reinforcement, and self-regulation. Information Sources and Search Strategy A comprehensive search of the peer-reviewed literature was conducted to identify empirical studies evaluating the use of group chat–based digital platforms as part of a health intervention. Initially, on September 19, 2025, searches were carried out in PubMed (via PubMed), Embase, MEDLINE (via Ovid), Web of Science (via Web of Science), and Scopus (via Scopus) for records published between January 1, 2005, and September 1, 2025, limited to English-language and human studies. Embase and MEDLINE were searched simultaneously on the Ovid platform (Wolters Kluwer) using a single search strategy. The search was rerun on February 18, 2026, to capture studies published from September 2, 2025, onward, using the same search concepts and eligibility criteria. Search strings combined controlled vocabulary and free-text terms related to group chats (eg, “group chat,” “WhatsApp group,” “Telegram group,” and “WeChat”) with health- and intervention-related terms (eg, “health promotion,” “behavior change,” “intervention,” “trial,” and “evaluation”). Filters excluded reviews, protocols, commentaries, and other nonempirical papers, and no published search filters were used. No additional restrictions were applied beyond the date range, English language, and human studies. The search strategy was not peer-reviewed and was not adapted from prior reviews. The complete search strategies for all databases, copied exactly as run (including the February 18, 2026 update), are provided in Checklist 2 . No study registries were searched, no targeted website browsing was undertaken, and no authors or experts were contacted to identify additional studies. Reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews were screened to identify additional publications, including linked articles reporting process evaluations or qualitative findings from the same intervention. Eligibility Criteria The studies were eligible if they evaluated a health-related intervention in which a group chat served as the core digital space for intervention delivery and interaction. Group chat was defined as a multiuser messaging thread within a messaging platform that enables interaction among participants, with or without facilitation, via text and optionally images, audio, or video. Eligible interventions used the group chat to deliver one or more core functions such as health education, counseling or coaching, peer support, facilitated discussion, collaborative problem-solving, or care coordination, rather than logistics alone. Eligible study designs included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, pilot and feasibility studies, and program evaluations reporting quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods findings. Included studies were mapped according to outcomes reported across behavioral, psychosocial, and clinical domains, as well as engagement and implementation outcomes where available. Studies reporting qualitative or process data linked to an intervention were retained where they contributed explanatory information to the realist synthesis. Studies were excluded if they lacked a defined human population, did not implement a health intervention, or used group chats only peripherally. Peripheral use was defined as group chats used primarily for recruitment, administrative coordination, appointment scheduling, or 1-way announcements without meaningful interactive discussion or delivery of intervention content. Publications without primary data, including protocols, conceptual papers, reviews, and conference abstracts, were excluded. Only full-text, peer-reviewed journal articles were included. Study Selection Records from all sources were imported into Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation), where duplicates were removed using the platform’s deduplication function with manual review to confirm and resolve remaining duplicates. To ensure consistent application of eligibility criteria, reviewers jointly piloted a small sample of abstracts prior to screening. Title and abstract screening and full-text screening were conducted independently by 2 reviewers. Disagreements were resolved through discussion, with a third reviewer consulted when consensus could not be reached. The study selection process is illustrated in the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram. Data Charting Data charting was conducted using structured, piloted forms designed to extract and organize information for both the mapping of study characteristics and the realist synthesis components of the review. Data were extracted and entered into these forms by 1 reviewer and independently checked by a second reviewer, with discrepancies resolved through discussion and arbitration by a third reviewer when needed. For the scoping review, charted items included bibliographic details (author and year), country or setting, health domain, study aims, study design, participant characteristics and sample size, platform type, intervention overview, and how the group chat functioned within the intervention. Where reported, we also charted key group chat features (eg, group structure, communication modalities, facilitation or moderation practices, and any stated privacy or participation rules), comparator conditions where applicable, outcome domains assessed, outcome measurement approaches and timing, and study-reported findings. For the realist synthesis, reviewers extracted verbatim or summarized data describing contextual conditions (eg, cultural setting, group composition, and level of facilitation), mechanisms proposed or observed to drive change, and outcomes achieved. When mechanisms were not explicitly stated, they were inferred from the authors’ descriptions of processes or participant experiences. CMO coding was undertaken by 2 reviewers and refined through team discussion. Analysis and Synthesis For the scoping review, extracted data were summarized descriptively to map study characteristics, intervention features, and outcome domains across the included studies. Studies were grouped by health domain, population, setting, and platform type, and outcomes were summarized across behavioral, psychosocial, and clinical domains, including how and when they were measured where reported. This descriptive synthesis was used to identify areas where evidence is more developed and where gaps remain. For the realist synthesis, analysis followed a realist logic of inquiry to develop and refine program theories explaining how, why, and under what conditions group chat interventions achieved outcomes. The process began with all extracted CMO data, each describing how contextual features interacted with intervention processes to generate change. Using a reflexive approach to thematic analysis [ 35 ], the team examined CMOs to identify recurring patterns, interconnections, and configurations across studies. CMOs were coded and grouped into higher-order clusters representing common or complementary configurations observed across settings. As patterns stabilized, these clusters were organized into broader domains and compared against the IPTs. The developing domains were informed by, but not limited to, the original IPT categories. While SCT provided the conceptual scaffold, categorizations evolved where new mechanisms or linkages emerged, ensuring the final framework reflected both theoretical grounding and empirical diversity. The framework was iteratively refined through team discussion and consensus-building, with regular meetings to test interpretations, examine alternative explanations, and address negative cases. A detailed audit trail documented each iteration of coding, synthesis, and decision-making. The final framework was distilled into a visual program theory that offered an evidence-based account of how group chat interventions operate and a heuristic for informing their design and adaptation. Relationship candidates were identified through cross-case comparison of CMO clusters and mapped only when supported by consistent empirical patterns or theoretically coherent linkages. The team iteratively refined these pathways through structured deliberation, examining rival explanations and negative cases to determine whether connections were salient enough to visualize. Directionality was assigned where temporal or causal ordering was evident in the data, while bidirectional relationships were included when reciprocal influence was repeatedly described. Results Included Studies A total of 4130 records were identified through database searches (PubMed=1326; Scopus=1296; Embase=764; Web of Science=744) and manual citation screening (n=29). After removing 1467 duplicates, 2692 titles and abstracts were screened, of which 2542 were excluded. Full-text assessment was conducted for 150 articles, of which 69 were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria, most commonly because group chat was not central to the intervention (n=41), no group chat component was present (n=10), full text was unavailable (n=8), or outcomes were not health related (n=1), with additional exclusions. A total of 81 studies [ 36-116 ] were included for the scoping review and realist synthesis ( Figure 1 ). Figure 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) diagram for studies included in the scoping review and realist synthesis of group chat interventions. Open in a new tab Study Characteristics Table 1 summarizes the breadth of study designs, settings, and intervention features across the 81 included studies [ 36-116 ]. Designs spanned RCTs (30/81, 37%), quasi-experimental or single-group evaluations (15/81, 18.5%), and non-RCTs (11/81, 13.6%), alongside pilot and feasibility studies (10/81, 12.3%) and smaller numbers of qualitative (6/81, 7.4%), mixed methods (5/81, 6.2%), and program evaluations (4/81, 4.9%). Geographically, studies were distributed across 23 countries, with the largest single-country contributions from China (18/81, 22.2%) and the United States (10/81, 12.3%), followed by Indonesia (7/81, 8.6%), Hong Kong SAR and Iran (5/81 each, 6.2%), and Japan (4/81, 4.9%). Four studies were multicountry in design [ 41 , 61 , 78 , 86 ], and the studies spanned Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, Europe, and other parts of Asia (25/81, 30.9%). Table 1. Summary of study characteristics. Characteristics Studies included (N=81) Study design, n (%) Randomized controlled trial 30 (37.0) Single-group or quasi-experimental study 15 (18.5) Nonrandomized controlled trial 11 (13.6) Pilot and feasibility study 10 (12.3) Qualitative descriptive study 6 (7.4) Mixed methods evaluation 5 (6.2) Retrospective observational study 2 (2.5) Real-world program evaluation 2 (2.5) Country, n (%) China 18 (22.2) United States 10 (12.3) Indonesia 7 (8.6) Hong Kong SAR 5 (6.2) Iran 5 (6.2) Japan 4 (4.9) Multicountry 4 (4.9) Germany 3 (3.7) Other a 25 (30.9) Health topic, n (%) Mental health 25 (30.9) Maternal and child health 20 (24.7) Weight management, nutrition, or eating disorders 13 (16.0) Smoking cessation 11 (13.6) Dementia and caregiving 9 (11.1) Diabetes 8 (9.9) Physical activity 7 (8.6) Others b 37 (45.7) Setting c , n (%) Clinical 39 (48.1) Community or home 34 (42.0) Workplace or school 8 (9.9) Type of membership, n (%) Mixed membership 68 (84.0) Homogeneous peer-led 13 (16.0) Communication modalities d , n (%) Text+dynamic media (audios, videos, etc) 41 (50.6) Text only 20 (24.7) Text+static media (images, emojis, links, etc) 15 (18.5) Not explicitly stated 5 (6.2) SCT e constructs aligned, n (%) Behavioral capability 61 (75.3) Self-efficacy 63 (77.8) Environment 69 (85.2) Observational learning 58 (71.6) Reinforcements 70 (86.4) Self-control 22 (27.2) Theories explicitly connected, n (%) Cognitive behavioral therapy 4 (4.9) Social cognitive theory 7 (8.6) Health Belief Model 3 (3.7) Other f 21 (25.9) Importance of group chat as intervention g , n (%) Core intervention 42 (51.9) Standalone intervention 13 (16.0) Reinforcement intervention 26 (32.1) Open in a new tab a The other countries include Kenya, Turkey, Cameroon, Uganda, Brazil, South Africa, Ghana, Nigeria, Tanzania, United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, and Philippines. b The other clinical topics include cancer and oncology, chronic disease self-management, parenting and child development, immunization, sexual and reproductive health, respiratory diseases, substance use, and rehabilitation. c For setting, clinical interventions or interventions between health professionals were chosen as “clinical,” public health interventions which happened at the community level were chosen as “community/home” and workplace or school-based interventions were chosen as “workplace/school.” d The chat platforms included WhatsApp, WeChat, Line, Viber, KakaoTalk, and Telegram. e SCT: social cognitive theory. f The other theories explicitly connected include Social Learning Theory, Parenting for Lifelong Health framework, Haddon Matrix, locus of control theory, Big Five Theory, MOST (Multiphase Optimization Strategy Framework) framework, Theory of Reasoned Action, Behavior Change Techniques (BCTs) taxonomy, Theory of Gender and Power, Information-Motivation-Behavior (IMB) Model, Behavior Change Wheel (BCW), Socioecological model, Theoretical framework of Acceptability, Psychoanalytic/Small Group theory, Wagner’s Chronic Illness Care (CIC) Model, Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills (IMB) theory, Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL), Reinforcement theory, Capability, Opportunity, Motivation–Behavior (COM-B) Theory, Planned Behavior Theory, Self-Regulation Theory, Self-Discrepancy Theory, and Peers for Progress framework. g If the group chat is: major part of the whole intervention for behavioral change, it is rated as “core”; the one and only behavioral intervention, it is rated as “standalone”; and as reinforcement or supplementary to the other behavioral interventions, it is rated as “reinforcement.” The health topics addressed were diverse and often overlapping across studies. Mental health was the most frequently targeted domain (25/81, 30.9%), encompassing interventions addressing depression, anxiety, caregiving burden, and related psychosocial conditions. Maternal and child health was the second most common focus (20/81, 24.7%), including antenatal and postnatal care, breastfeeding support, and child development programs. Other prominent topics included weight management, nutrition, or eating disorders (13/81, 16%), smoking cessation (11/81, 13.6%), dementia and caregiving (9/81, 11.1%), diabetes self-management (8/81, 9.9%), and physical activity (7/81, 8.6%). A heterogeneous range of topics was addressed (37/81, 45.7%), including HIV, cancer, cardiovascular rehabilitation, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease self-management. As studies frequently addressed more than 1 health domain, these proportions sum to more than 100%. Nearly half of the studies were implemented in clinical settings (39/81, 48.1%), with the remainder primarily in community or home settings (34/81, 42%) and a smaller subset in workplace or school settings (8/81, 9.9%). Most interventions used mixed membership group formats comprising health professionals alongside participants (68/81, 84%) rather than homogeneous peer-led groups (13/81, 16%). Communication modalities were most often text combined with dynamic media such as audio and video (41/81, 50.6%), followed by text-only (20/81, 24.7%) and text combined with static media such as images, emojis, and links (15/81, 18.5%). Group chats most often served as the core intervention component (42/81, 51.9%), followed by use as a reinforcement or adjunct within broader multicomponent programs (26/81, 32.1%), and as standalone interventions (13/81, 16.0%). Of the 81 studies [ 36-116 ], theoretical frameworks connected to interventions included SCT (n=7, 8.6%), cognitive behavioral therapy (n=4, 4.9%), and the Health Belief Model (n=3, 3.7%). SCT constructs were commonly identifiable across interventions, with reinforcements (70/81, 86.4%) and environment (69/81, 85.2%) most frequently operationalized, followed by self-efficacy (63/81, 77.8%), behavioral capability (61/81, 75.3%), and observational learning (58/81, 71.6%). These descriptive patterns supported later theory-informed synthesis rather than serving as causal claims within the mapping stage. The publication timeline indicates a small number of early studies from 2007 onward, followed by accelerated growth in the early 2020s ( Figure 2 ). More than three-quarters of the evidence base (63/81, 77.8%) was published between 2020 and 2025, with the cumulative total increasing sharply in recent years. Prior to 2020, annual publication counts remained low, with no more than 3 studies published in any single year. This figure is intended to situate the field’s maturity and pace of expansion rather than to infer drivers of growth. Figure 2. Trends of the included publications over time (N=81). Open in a new tab Distribution of Platforms, Settings, and Evidence Across Health Topics Platform use varied by context ( Figure 3 ). WhatsApp was the most frequently studied platform overall (38/81, 46.9%), with substantial representation in community settings (n=26) and additional use in clinical settings (n=11). WeChat was also commonly evaluated (21/81, 25.9%), largely in clinical contexts (n=15), reflecting its integration within China’s health care system. Customized or other platforms, including LINE, Viber, KakaoTalk (Kakao Corporation), and Telegram, were used across both clinical and community settings (19/81, 23.5%). This mapping is presented to describe delivery channels across contexts and to support later interpretation of how platform affordances may shape implementation conditions. Figure 3. Usage of group chat platforms by study settings (N=81). The other chat platforms include Line, Viber, KakaoTalk, and Telegram. Open in a new tab To further characterize the distribution of evidence across health topics and outcome domains, Figure 4 presents an evidence gap map of all 81 included studies [ 36-116 ]. Engagement and behavioral outcomes were the most consistently studied across nearly all health topics, while psychosocial outcomes remained notably sparse, particularly for smoking cessation, weight management, and dementia and caregiving, indicating areas where the evidence base requires further development. Figure 4. Evidence gap map of group chat interventions based on outcome domains and clinical topics (N=81). Others in the study design include mixed methods evaluation, retrospective observational study, and real-world program evaluation. Other in the clinical topics include cancer and oncology, chronic disease self-management, parenting and child development, immunization, respiratory diseases, substance use, and rehabilitation. RCT: randomized controlled trial. Open in a new tab Final CMO Configurations The analysis produced 12 CMO configurations, reflecting the most recurrent and explanatory patterns across the included studies. These configurations describe how specific contextual conditions triggered mechanisms within group chat–based interventions, shaping behavioral, psychosocial, and engagement outcomes ( Multimedia Appendix 3 ) [ 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 42-47 , 49-54 , 58 , 59 , 61-63 , 65-69 , 71 , 72 , 74 , 75 , 77 , 79 , 81 , 82 , 84-86 , 88-90 , 94-96 , 99-106 , 108-116 , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined ]. Domain 1: Capability and Actionability Group chats enhanced participants’ capacity to adopt health behaviors through several mechanisms. Timed prompts broke down complex actions into manageable steps, aiding timely task completion; for example, a WhatsApp program in Semarang used frequent prompts and multimedia guidance to support early breastfeeding, iron use, hygiene, and danger-sign monitoring [ 100 ]. Multimedia content (eg, videos and audio clips) paired with threaded Q&As helped participants develop practical skills by allowing them to view demonstrations, ask questions, and revisit materials. Chats also corrected misinformation in real time, reducing cognitive dissonance, such as in a Hong Kong WhatsApp group where mothers clarified details about influenza vaccination and gained confidence in clinic navigation [ 71 ]. These elements collectively strengthened behavioral capability across varied health domains. Domain 2: Confidence and Motivation Sustaining participants’ belief in their capacity to change relied on personalized encouragement, visible recognition, and synchronous interaction. Tailored moderator feedback helped participants reframe setbacks constructively, boosting confidence and activating peer accountability. For example, a WhatsApp-based cognitive behavioral therapy program for overweight women in Iran used daily therapist interactions to support cognitive reframing and behavior monitoring, improving BMI [ 36 ]. Group recognition through photo sharing, comments, and public acknowledgment amplified motivation by making progress visible, fostering social validation and sustained engagement. Some interventions added brief audio or video calls, enhancing text-based support with immediacy and nonverbal cues. For instance, weekly video-based group chats that used real-time audio and visible nonverbal cues created stronger social presence and cohesion, leading to higher engagement compared with text-only formats [ 98 ]. This synchronous interaction deepened interpersonal bonds, increasing accountability and mutual support. Domain 3: Modeling and Norms Observational learning worked through direct peer exchange and the emergence of informal knowledge brokers. When participants shared personal experiences and outcomes, others gained concrete, relatable examples of applying health behaviors in real-life contexts. This peer demonstration normalized both success and struggle. For example, shared contraceptive experiences in digitally facilitated postabortion groups reduced anxiety and boosted confidence in effective method adoption [ 85 ]. Social comparison helped participants identify feasible tactics and adjust expectations based on peers’ experiences. In some groups, participants assumed bridging roles, especially when expert input was intermittent. These emergent peer leaders relayed information, validated insights, and sustained discussion, reducing the gap between laypeople and professionals. For example, in moderated parent groups, more knowledgeable members absorbed expert input and began clarifying information and guiding peers [ 53 ]. These informal knowledge brokers multiplied learning pathways and strengthened network cohesion, enhancing the sustainability of professional guidance. Domain 4: Safe, Supportive Environment and Access Group chat effectiveness hinged on structural and social characteristics that fostered authentic engagement. Small, closed groups with privacy safeguards and clear participation rules created psychological safety, encouraging participants to disclose sensitive information. For instance, anonymous online chats for adolescents with depressive symptoms reduced judgment fears and deepened emotional sharing [ 54 ]. However, privacy alone was insufficient; supportive social norms that discouraged judgment and promoted mutual respect were also key. Cultural and linguistic alignment further shaped trust and relevance. Interventions using participants’ primary language, culturally familiar content, and trusted messengers enhanced understanding and engagement. For example, a WeChat cessation program for Chinese immigrant smokers used tailored messages and coach support to improve quitting knowledge and self-efficacy [ 65 ]. Such cultural fit was especially crucial for low-literacy or marginalized communities often overlooked by standard health communication. Domain 5: Self-Regulation and Maintenance Group chats sustained behavior change by externalizing accountability and automating behavioral cues. Public goal setting with daily status updates made commitments visible, fostering social accountability and self-monitoring. Peer visibility created gentle pressure to follow through and modeled consistent behavior, as seen in small anonymous digital groups where daily abstinence updates and peer “applause” improved motivation and self-efficacy, leading to higher smoking cessation rates at 12 weeks [ 102 ]. Frequent peer messages reinforced shared goals through consistent social prompting. Time-based reminders complemented this by serving as environmental cues, reducing reliance on fluctuating motivation and helping establish habitual routines. A WeChat program for coronary artery disease patients used thrice-weekly messages for 12 months to reinforce self-management and improve diet, exercise, medication adherence, and blood pressure monitoring [ 67 ]. Despite these insights, evidence on the persistence of these self-regulation mechanisms after interventions ended remains limited, leaving long-term maintenance uncertain. Consolidated Program Theory of Group Chat Interventions Building on the CMO domains in Multimedia Appendix 3 [ 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 42-47 , 49-54 , 58 , 59 , 61-63 , 65-69 , 71 , 72 , 74 , 75 , 77 , 79 , 81 , 82 , 84-86 , 88-90 , 94-96 , 99-106 , 108-116 , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined ], Figure 5 synthesizes how group chat interventions were observed to operate within layered and interacting contextual conditions. Rather than functioning within single, isolated enablers, systems, technology, settings, participants, and social factors often combined in ways that shaped who participated, how safely they engaged, and how reliably groups were maintained. Across studies, conditions that supported digital access, regular facilitation, and a sense of social familiarity or safety frequently co-occurred, while technological instability, limited staff presence, or socially constrained dynamics were commonly described as barriers. Figure 5. Visualized context-mechanism-outcome pathways from realist synthesis and scoping review describing how group chat interventions were observed to shape health-related outcomes. The figure synthesizes cross-study context-mechanism-outcome patterns into a final program theory. Contextual conditions (system, technology, setting, participant, and social factors) list facilitators (F) and barriers (B). Colored solid arrows represent the primary pathways underpinning the 5 major domains in the Final Program Theory ( Multimedia Appendix 3 ) [ 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 42-47 , 49-54 , 58 , 59 , 61-63 , 65-69 , 71 , 72 , 74 , 75 , 77 , 79 , 81 , 82 , 84-86 , 88-90 , 94-96 , 99-106 , 108-116 , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined ] and their most salient context-mechanism-outcome relationships. Dotted arrows indicate additional relationships within or across context, mechanism, or outcome domains. One-way arrows depict primarily unidirectional influences, while 2-way arrows reflect bidirectional or mutually reinforcing relationships. Outcome clusters summarize the main proximal and distal effects derived from the scoping review. Arrows visualize the most prominent patterns identified, while other secondary or more distal relationships may exist. The figure highlights those most consistently supported across included studies. Open in a new tab Within these contextual environments, the mechanism patterns identified in the review tended to operate in combination. Capability-building processes (eg, prompts, guidance, and corrections) were often noted alongside elements that created a psychologically safe space for questions or disclosure. Peer modeling and emerging norms helped translate guidance into everyday routines, while motivational inputs and emotional reassurance supported continued effort. Self-regulation processes, such as routine check-ins, public goals, and habit cues, were typically described in studies where other mechanisms were already active. Across interventions, these interdependencies appeared to shape how participants learned, interacted, and sustained behavioral changes over time. The outcome layer of the model draws on the scoping review and links these mechanisms to behavioral, psychosocial, and clinical outcomes. Improvements were reported in breastfeeding technique and caregiving practices, safety and hygiene behaviors, emotional well-being, and day-to-day disease self-management. Across studies, health behavior consistency and self-management routines emerged as an important foundation for other outcomes, frequently appearing alongside or prior to changes in clinical indicators such as weight, glycemic markers, blood pressure, or disease perceptions. Examples from the review illustrate these patterns: in clinic-based WhatsApp cessation groups in Hong Kong, recent quitters who engaged more consistently benefited from peer reinforcement and achieved higher abstinence rates [ 57 ], whereas in maternal health groups where husbands felt embarrassed and participation remained low, limited psychological safety and weak norms were noted as barriers to attitudinal change [ 100 ]. Overall, the program theory depicts group chat interventions as dynamic, socially embedded systems whose effectiveness depends on how well contextual conditions, mechanisms, and outcomes remain in alignment over time. Discussion Principal Findings This scoping review with realist synthesis mapped and explained the evidence on group chat–based health interventions. In line with our objectives, the scoping review component described where evidence is concentrated and how interventions have been designed and evaluated, while the realist synthesis examined how contextual conditions shape engagement and behavior change. Findings highlight how the evidence base on group chat interventions has grown rapidly since 2020 and is concentrated most strongly in mental health and maternal and child health. WhatsApp and WeChat were the most commonly used platforms across community and clinical settings, and most interventions relied on mixed membership groups that included health professionals alongside participants. The realist synthesis identified 12 recurring CMO configurations that clustered into 5 mechanism domains: capability and actionability, confidence and motivation, modeling and norms, safe supportive environments and access, and self-regulation and maintenance. Together, these findings offer a theory-informed account of how group chat interventions operate in practice and highlight key evidence gaps, including the underrepresentation of older adults and lower literacy users and the limited reporting of implementation processes. In many digital health programs, group chats are positioned as an enabling social layer alongside other components (eg, coaching sessions, educational modules, wearables, or reminder systems), which may enhance support but also make it difficult to isolate whether observed effects are driven by peer processes, professional input, self-monitoring, or their interaction. We also excluded many studies where group chats were mentioned but not substantively implemented. In several cases, the feature was added with minimal detail on facilitation, engagement, or theoretical rationale, suggesting it was treated as a generic communication channel rather than a mechanism-based component. Taken together, these patterns indicate a broader missed opportunity: group chats are often positioned as supplementary add-ons rather than designed and evaluated as interventions with their own distinct social and behavioral mechanisms. Previous reviews on digital health communications, including those in digital mental health, tend to emphasize adaptability, cost, and organizational policies rather than the mechanisms that drive behavior change [ 13 ]. At the same time, earlier realist reviews often pool together diverse digital health technologies [ 12 , 117 ], which makes it difficult to detect modality-specific dynamics. By focusing specifically on group chat interventions, our review is able to surface mechanisms such as peer modeling, emergent leadership, and collective accountability that are overlooked in broader syntheses. We further show that informal peer leaders and knowledge brokers naturally emerge within these groups [ 46 , 53 , 68 , 101 ], suggesting that long-term effectiveness may depend more on peer-to-peer support than on continuous professional involvement. This contrasts with Schlief et al [ 118 ] emphasis on therapeutic relationships and Shahid et al [ 119 ] focus on team-based professional care, highlighting how the peer-led potential of group chats remains underused. Moreover, the predominance of group chat interventions in LMICs, especially in Asia, was another notable finding. Rapid mobile uptake [ 120 ], collectivist social norms [ 121 ], and rising chronic disease burdens [ 122 , 123 ] create strong demand for low-cost, scalable tools that mirror everyday communication practices. These contexts also underscore the potential of group chats to reach users who may be excluded by app-centric or data-heavy models [ 124 ], including those with shared devices, limited data, or intermittent access. At the same time, a clear disconnect emerged: although group chats are widely used by populations often absent from more complex digital health tools (including older adults and lower literacy users), these groups were still largely missing from the intervention studies. This likely reflects recruitment patterns centered on maternal, youth, and clinic-based populations rather than the wider pool of everyday messaging app users [ 125 , 126 ]. A related concern is that recruitment may still be shaped by assumptions about which groups are easiest to reach digitally, even though recent participatory realist work cautions against assuming who can or cannot benefit without empirical evidence [ 127 ]. Broadening future studies to include these underrepresented groups and testing needed adaptations in facilitation, content, or onboarding will be essential for understanding how group chat interventions function across diverse ages, literacy levels, and access conditions [ 12 ]. The group chats in our realist synthesis were predominantly small, closed groups with preexisting relationships, intensive facilitation by providers or researchers, and a single, bounded communication space [ 36 , 44 , 46 , 54 , 58 , 61 , 69 , 72 , 74 , 81 , 89 , 100 , 101 , 103 , 114-116 , undefined , undefined ]. These design choices supported safety and disclosure but limited the multidirectional information flows across wider social networks that naturally occur in everyday messaging use [ 127 ]. By contrast, observational work on platforms such as WhatsApp, WeChat, and Facebook Messenger (Meta Platforms, Inc) has shown that group chats can rapidly diffuse information and misinformation during crises [ 128 ], coordinate mutual aid [ 129 ], and function as hubs for resource sharing and collective problem-solving [ 130 ]. Across intervention trials, effects also often appeared to be contingent on engagement intensity and facilitation quality, reinforcing that group chats often operate as social and motivational infrastructures rather than simple content-delivery mechanisms [ 131 ]. Our realist synthesis highlighted the centrality of peers in driving engagement and change within intervention groups [ 37 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 52 , 53 , 59 , 61 , 68 , 69 , 75 , 81 , 82 , 84 , 85 , 88-90 , 94 , 95 , 101-104 , 108-110 , 113-116 , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined , undefined ], suggesting substantial untapped potential to design group chat interventions that position communities as active agents of change rather than passive recipients. Future work could more deliberately harness social diffusion, for example, by seeding core groups and explicitly supporting participants to adapt and carry content into their own family, neighborhood, faith-based, or workplace chats, while safeguarding norms of privacy and trust. Some emerging models already point in this direction. For instance, the “Let’s Chat” intervention trained young Vietnamese American adults as family health advocates who then initiated and led cancer screening discussions within their existing intergenerational family group chats, demonstrating how a relatively light-touch scaffold can catalyze preventive conversations across multiple related networks [ 46 ]. Designing and testing similar networked group chat architectures, including multigroup structures and clearly defined bridging roles, represents a key opportunity for innovation in digital health. This review has several strengths, including being the first to focus specifically on group chats as a primary digital health delivery channel, integrating a scoping review of empirical studies with a realist synthesis grounded in an a priori SCT-informed program theory and conducted in line with PRISMA-ScR [ 30 ] and RAMESES II [ 32 ]. This methodological combination provides a unique contribution by mapping how group chat interventions have been designed and implemented across settings while also explaining the mechanisms and contextual conditions through which they operate in practice. Our findings show that group messaging functions as a socially embedded environment in which capability building, modeling, reinforcement, motivation, and self-regulation unfold through everyday interaction. The realist approach was especially valuable for unpacking these processes, allowing us to identify recurring CMO patterns across diverse platforms and settings. These insights advance behavioral theory in digital health by showing how constructs such as observational learning, collective efficacy, and social reinforcement are activated within group chat ecosystems, and they offer clearer design principles for tailoring interventions to local cultures, facilitation capacities, and user needs. Limitations Several limitations should be noted. First, a formal critical appraisal across all included studies was not undertaken. Given the heterogeneity in study designs, populations, intervention formats, and outcome measures, applying a single quality assessment tool across the full evidence base was not feasible. Second, we limited inclusion to peer-reviewed, English-language full texts; this language restriction may have excluded relevant studies and may bias the apparent geographic distribution of evidence, particularly for platforms and settings where local language publication is common. We also excluded conference proceedings, protocols, and gray literature, which may have led to undercapture of emerging interventions and implementation learnings that are not yet published as full articles. Third, realist inference depends on the availability of contextual and process data, yet many primary studies, including RCT reports, provided limited detail on facilitation practices, engagement dynamics, and implementation adaptations. The frequent absence of rich process data constrained CMO specification in some cases and may have required cautious inference from brief descriptions, potentially leading to underspecification or misclassification of mechanisms and contexts. Conclusion Group chats are central to how communities communicate yet remain underused in formal digital health design. This review shows that group chats are not only delivery channels but social infrastructure that can mobilize collective action, reinforce norms, and support sustained behavior change in ways distinct from other digital modalities. By centering group chats as a distinct intervention format and integrating a scoping review with realist program theory, we explain how context and facilitation activate mechanisms of change, offering a practical roadmap for designing and scaling low-cost, high-reach interventions within broader digital initiatives. AI-enabled chatbots and facilitation tools may extend this potential through scalable tailoring, just-in-time prompts, multilingual clarification, and triage while reducing moderator burden [ 111 ], but also raise design and governance questions around trust, peer dynamics, misinformation and safety, and when human facilitation is essential for relationship-building and accountability [ 132 ]. Compared with prior reviews that pool digital modalities or focus primarily on effectiveness [ 20 , 22 , 24 ], this synthesis clarifies what makes group chats distinctive and actionable for implementation. In practice, group chat interventions may be most useful when deliberately structured to harness peer interaction and facilitation, or when integrated with complementary modalities such as brief onboarding or coaching to establish goals and norms [ 133 ], self-guided app or web modules for skill building reinforced through chat-based practice and feedback [ 134 ], and SMS or wearable-triggered prompts that feed into timely group problem-solving and accountability [ 135 ]. The program theory generated here supports implementers and policymakers in configuring design features, facilitation approaches, and contextual conditions (system, technology, setting, participant, and social) to activate specific mechanisms, moving beyond ad hoc use of group message threads toward purpose-built group environments. For researchers, priorities include targeted evaluations of chatbot-mediated group chat interventions, testing how agents deliver core functions (prompting, feedback, personalization, and triage) within groups, and comparative studies that isolate the contribution of group chat components relative to other digital modalities. With deliberate, theory-driven development, group chat interventions can be more consistently specified, implemented, and evaluated as a scalable and equitable component of digital health systems across diverse settings. Supplementary material Multimedia Appendix 1. Initial Program Theories for group chat–based health interventions (guided by social cognitive theory). jmir-v28-e88911-s001.docx (15KB, docx) DOI: 10.2196/88911 Multimedia Appendix 2. Cross-cutting facilitators and barriers for activating Initial Program Theory mechanisms in group chat–based interventions. jmir-v28-e88911-s002.docx (15.4KB, docx) DOI: 10.2196/88911 Multimedia Appendix 3. Final program theory synthesizing context-mechanism-outcome configurations in group chat health interventions was analyzed. jmir-v28-e88911-s003.doc (45KB, doc) DOI: 10.2196/88911 Checklist 1. PRISMA-ScR checklist. jmir-v28-e88911-s004.docx (107.1KB, docx) DOI: 10.2196/88911 Checklist 2. PRISMA-S checklist. jmir-v28-e88911-s005.docx (18KB, docx) DOI: 10.2196/88911 Acknowledgments We would like to thank Jun Wei Goh, Joy Hui En Tan, Yee Rui Khoo, and Khon Wathan for their valuable contributions during the early phases of this project. The authors confirm that no generative artificial intelligence (AI) or AI-assisted technologies were used in the creation of text, figures, or other informational content in this manuscript. Abbreviations: AI artificial intelligence CMO context-mechanism-outcome IPT Initial Program Theory LMIC low- and middle-income country PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses PRISMA-S Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension PRISMA-ScR Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews RAMESES II Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards II RCT randomized controlled trial SCT social cognitive theory Footnotes Funding: No external financial support or grants were received from any public, commercial, or not-for-profit entities for the research, authorship, or publication of this article. Authors’ Contributions: Conceptualization: SHA Data curation: HT, SHA Formal analysis: HT, SHA Investigation: HT, SHA Methodology: JH, SHA Supervision: SHA Writing – original draft: HT Writing – review & editing: HT, FJHC, JH, SHA Data Availability: All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files. Conflicts of Interest: None declared. References 1. Seckman C, Van de Castle B. Understanding digital health technologies using mind maps. [17-03-2026];J Nurs Scholarsh. 2021 Jan;53(1):7–15. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12611. https://sigmapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/15475069/53/1 URL. Accessed. doi. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 2. Huang F, Blaschke S, Lucas H. Beyond pilotitis: taking digital health interventions to the national level in China and Uganda. Global Health. 2017 Jul 31;13(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s12992-017-0275-z. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. Zheng H, Ling R. Drivers of social media fatigue: a systematic review. Telemat Inform. 2021 Nov;64:101696. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2021.101696. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 4. Facts and figures 2024 - internet use. ITU. [17-03-2026]. https://www.itu.int/itu-d/reports/statistics/2024/11/10/ff24-internet-use URL. Accessed. 5. Stark AL, Geukes C, Dockweiler C. Digital health promotion and prevention in settings: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2022 Jan 28;24(1):e21063. doi: 10.2196/21063. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 6. Aggarwal A, Tam CC, Wu D, Li X, Qiao S. Artificial intelligence-based chatbots for promoting health behavioral changes: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2023 Feb 24;25(1):e40789. doi: 10.2196/40789. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. Marsch LA. Digital health data-driven approaches to understand human behavior. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2021 Jan;46(1):191–196. doi: 10.1038/s41386-020-0761-5. doi. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 8. Dagum P. Digital biomarkers of cognitive function. NPJ Digit Med. 2018 Mar 28;1(1):10. doi: 10.1038/s41746-018-0018-4. doi. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 9. Vereen RN, Kurtzman R, Noar SM. Are social media interventions for health behavior change efficacious among populations with health disparities?: a meta-analytic review. Health Commun. 2023 Jan;38(1):133–140. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2021.1937830. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. Rothman AJ. “Is there nothing more practical than a good theory?”: Why innovations and advances in health behavior change will arise if interventions are used to test and refine theory. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2004 Jul 27;1(1):11. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-1-11. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. Grace-Farfaglia P. Social cognitive theories and electronic health design: scoping review. JMIR Hum Factors. 2019 Jul 19;6(3):e11544. doi: 10.2196/11544. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Goswami A, Poole L, Thorlu-Bangura Z, et al. The use of digital health interventions for cardiometabolic diseases among South Asian and Black minority ethnic groups: realist review. J Med Internet Res. 2023 Jan 6;25:e40630. doi: 10.2196/40630. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Villarreal-Zegarra D, Alarcon-Ruiz CA, Melendez-Torres GJ, et al. Development of a framework for the implementation of synchronous digital mental health: realist synthesis of systematic reviews. JMIR Ment Health. 2022 Mar 29;9(3):e34760. doi: 10.2196/34760. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 14. Peláez Zuberbuhler J, Pietrantoni L, Mazzetti G, et al. A systematic realist synthesis of digital interventions for enhancing mental health at work: contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2025 Jan 9;19(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s13033-024-00655-5. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 15. Fitzpatrick PJ. Improving health literacy using the power of digital communications to achieve better health outcomes for patients and practitioners. Front Digit Health. 2023;5:1264780. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2023.1264780. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. Kuhlmann S, Ahlers-Schmidt CR, Steinberger E. TXT@WORK: pediatric hospitalists and text messaging. Telemed J E Health. 2014 Jul;20(7):647–652. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2013.0200. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. How countries are using edtech (including online learning, radio, television, texting) to support access to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. EdTech Hub. 2020. [07-11-2025]. https://docs.edtechhub.org/lib/RGLRHG75 URL. Accessed. 18. Carvalho S, Crawfurd L. School’s out: now what? Center for Global Development. [07-11-2025]. https://www.cgdev.org/blog/schools-out-now-what URL. Accessed. 19. He Y, Yang L, Qian C, et al. Conversational agent interventions for mental health problems: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Med Internet Res. 2023 Apr 28;25(1):e43862. doi: 10.2196/43862. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 20. Carvalho J, Francisco R, Relvas AP. Family functioning and information and communication technologies: How do they relate? A literature review. Comput Human Behav. 2015 Apr;45:99–108. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.037. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 21. Mannell K. Plural and porous: reconceptualizing the boundaries of mobile messaging group chats. J Comput Mediat Commun. 2020 Jul 1;25(4):274–290. doi: 10.1093/jcmc/zmaa007. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 22. Manji K, Hanefeld J, Vearey J, Walls H, de Gruchy T. Using WhatsApp messenger for health systems research: a scoping review of available literature. Health Policy Plan. 2021 Jun 1;36(5):594–605. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czab024. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 23. Nakamura CA, Seward N, Peters TJ, et al. A self-help mobile messaging intervention to improve subthreshold depressive symptoms among older adults in a socioeconomically deprived region of Brazil (PRODIGITAL): a pragmatic, two-arm randomised controlled trial. Lancet Reg Health Am. 2024 Nov;39:100897. doi: 10.1016/j.lana.2024.100897. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 24. Treadgold BM, Coulson NS, Campbell JL, Lambert J, Pitchforth E. Quality and misinformation about health conditions in online peer support groups: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2025 May 16;27(1):e71140. doi: 10.2196/71140. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 25. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Englesakis M, Rizo C, Stern A. Health related virtual communities and electronic support groups: systematic review of the effects of online peer to peer interactions. BMJ. 2004 May 15;328(7449):1166. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7449.1166. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 26. McCool J, Dobson R, Whittaker R, Paton C. Mobile health (mHealth) in low- and middle-income countries. Annu Rev Public Health. 2022 Apr 5;43(1):525–539. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-052620-093850. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 27. Seiler J, Libby TE, Jackson E, Lingappa JR, Evans WD. Social media-based interventions for health behavior change in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2022 Apr 14;24(4):e31889. doi: 10.2196/31889. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 28. Tudor Car L, Dhinagaran DA, Kyaw BM, et al. Conversational agents in health care: scoping review and conceptual analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Aug 7;22(8):e17158. doi: 10.2196/17158. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 29. Hou T, Ho MH, Li H, Lin CC. The effectiveness of instant messaging-based interventions on health behavior change: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2025 Aug;22(4):e70066. doi: 10.1111/wvn.70066. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 30. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467–473. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 31. Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Syst Rev. 2021 Jan 26;10(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 32. Wong G, Westhorp G, Manzano A, Greenhalgh J, Jagosh J, Greenhalgh T. RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations. BMC Med. 2016 Jun 24;14(1):96. doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0643-1. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 33. Bandura A. Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52(1):1–26. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 34. Morrison LG. Theory-based strategies for enhancing the impact and usage of digital health behaviour change interventions: a review. Digit Health. 2015;1:2055207615595335. doi: 10.1177/2055207615595335. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 35. Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2019 Aug 8;11(4):589–597. doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 36. Abedishargh N, Ramezani Farani A, Gharraee B, Farahani H. Effectiveness of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy in weight loss, stress, anxiety, and depression via virtual group therapy. Iran J Psychiatry Behav Sci. 2021 Jan;15(3):e113096. doi: 10.5812/ijpbs.113096. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 37. Alhazmy RS, Khalil AH, Almutary H. Effects of an instructional WhatsApp group on self-care and HbA1c among female patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. PLoS One. 2024;19(9):e0305845. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305845. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 38. Allotey D, Flax VL, Ipadeola AF, et al. Feasibility and acceptability of integrating a multicomponent breastfeeding promotion intervention into routine health services in private health facilities in Lagos State, Nigeria: a mixed methods process evaluation. PLoS One. 2024;19(4):e0301695. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301695. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 39. Anaje CC, Okpala CI, Enechukwu NA, Ezejiofor OI, Malachy DE, Nwiyi OK. The impact of WhatsApp as a health education tool in albinism: interventional study. JMIR Dermatol. 2023 Nov 21;6:e49950. doi: 10.2196/49950. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 40. Bauer S, Wolf M, Haug S, Kordy H. The effectiveness of internet chat groups in relapse prevention after inpatient psychotherapy. [17-11-2025];Psychother Res. 2011 Mar;21(2):219–226. doi: 10.1080/10503307.2010.547530. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10503307.2010.547530 URL. Accessed. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 41. Carmona S, Alayed N, Al-Ibrahim A, D’Souza R. Realizing the potential of real-time clinical collaboration in maternal-fetal and obstetric medicine through WhatsApp. Obstet Med. 2018 Jun;11(2):83–89. doi: 10.1177/1753495X18754457. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 42. Cheung YTD, Chan CHH, Lai CKJ, et al. Using WhatsApp and Facebook online social groups for smoking relapse prevention for recent quitters: a pilot pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Oct 22;17(10):e238. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4829. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 43. Cheung WC, Miles LM, Hawkes RE, French DP. Experiences of online group support for engaging and supporting participants in the National Health Service Digital Diabetes Prevention Programme: a qualitative interview study. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2024 Apr;29(2):100–110. doi: 10.1177/13558196231212846. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 44. Chory A, Nyandiko W, Martin R, et al. HIV-related knowledge, attitudes, behaviors and experiences of Kenyan adolescents living with HIV revealed in WhatsApp group chats. J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care. 2021;20:2325958221999579. doi: 10.1177/2325958221999579. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 45. Pereira AAC, Destro JR, Picinin Bernuci M, Garcia LF, Rodrigues Lucena TF. Effects of a WhatsApp-delivered education intervention to enhance breast cancer knowledge in women: mixed-methods study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Jul 21;8(7):e17430. doi: 10.2196/17430. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 46. Duong HT, Hopfer S. Let’s Chat: development of a family group chat cancer prevention intervention for Vietnamese families. Health Educ Behav. 2021 Apr;48(2):208–219. doi: 10.1177/1090198121990389. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 47. Duong HT, Hopfer S. “Let’s Chat”: process evaluation of an intergenerational group chat intervention to increase cancer prevention screening among Vietnamese American families. Transl Behav Med. 2021 Apr 7;11(3):891–900. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibaa120. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 48. Fan HSL, Ho MY, Ko RWT, et al. Feasibility and effectiveness of WhatsApp online group on breastfeeding by peer counsellors: a single-blinded, open-label pilot randomized controlled study. Int Breastfeed J. 2022 Dec 22;17(1):91. doi: 10.1186/s13006-022-00535-z. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 49. Faridah F, Anies A, Kartasurya MI, Widjanarko B. Online educational intervention: Improving maternal knowledge and attitudes in providing developmental stimulation for stunting toddlers. Narra J. 2024 Apr;4(1):e591. doi: 10.52225/narra.v4i1.591. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 50. Fauziansyah A. Support group WhatsApp chat method on knowledge of heart failure patients at RSUD dr. R. Koesma Tuban. JNSU. 2024 May 27;12(1):9–17. doi: 10.21776/ub.jik.2024.012.01.02. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 51. Femyliati R, Fikri AM, Andriani E. The effect of nutrition education through social media on nutritional knowledge and menu selection in food delivery application. Amerta Nutr. 2023 Jun 9;7(2):248–254. doi: 10.20473/amnt.v7i2.2023.248-254. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 52. Feng Y, Ma X, Zhang Q, et al. Effectiveness of WeChat-group-based parental health education in preventing unintentional injuries among children aged 0-3: randomized controlled trial in Shanghai. BMC Public Health. 2022 Nov 16;22(1):2086. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14462-5. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 53. Feng Y, Li X, Ma X, et al. Using online social networks to provide a parental health-education intervention for preventing unintentional injuries among children aged 0–3 years: a randomized controlled trial and social network analysis in Shanghai, China. Front Public Health. 2023 Jan 11;10:1049851. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1049851. doi. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 54. Gerrits RS, van der Zanden RAP, Visscher RFM, Conijn BP. Master your mood online: a preventive chat group intervention for adolescents. Aust e-J Adv Ment Health. 2007 Jan;6(3):152–162. doi: 10.5172/jamh.6.3.152. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 55. Golkaramnay V, Bauer S, Haug S, Wolf M, Kordy H. The exploration of the effectiveness of group therapy through an Internet chat as aftercare: a controlled naturalistic study. Psychother Psychosom. 2007;76(4):219–225. doi: 10.1159/000101500. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 56. Guo Z, Luk TT, Weng X, et al. Behavioral support by ex-smoking peers using instant messaging for smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial. CHEST. 2026 Jan;169(1):300–311. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2025.07.4110. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 57. He WJA, Wang Q, Lam TH, et al. Effectiveness of instant messaging-based online group support for preventing smoking relapse: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Int J Ment Health Addiction. 2025 Jun;23(3):2460–2477. doi: 10.1007/s11469-024-01239-7. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 58. Hong YA, Shen K, Han HR, et al. Two-year follow-up of dementia caregivers after a digital health intervention WECARE: a mixed-method study. Aging Ment Health. 2025 Apr;29(4):631–638. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2024.2449141. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 59. Huang F, Zhang S, Tian Y, et al. Effect of mobile health based peripartum management of gestational diabetes mellitus on postpartum diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2021 May;175:108775. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2021.108775. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 60. Huang HY, Chen CL, Lin YL, et al. Optimizing treatment for hospitalized patients with COPD: a study on the impact of a LINE app-based multidisciplinary team approach targeting pharmacological treatment, lifestyle changes, and smoking cessation. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2025;20:1149–1159. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S511869. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 61. Hucker A, McCabe MP. A qualitative evaluation of online chat groups for women completing a psychological intervention for female sexual dysfunction. [17-03-2026];J Sex Marital Ther. 2014 40(1):58–68. doi: 10.1080/0092623X.2012.675020. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0092623X.2012.675020 URL. Accessed. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 62. Janowski R, Cluver LD, Shenderovich Y, et al. Optimizing engagement with a smartphone app to prevent violence against adolescents: results from a cluster randomized factorial trial in Tanzania. J Med Internet Res. 2025 Mar 10;27(1):e60102. doi: 10.2196/60102. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 63. Jia Y, Xiao Y, Chen H, et al. Effects of group communication norms on daily steps in a team-based financial incentive mobile phone intervention in Shanghai, China. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2025 Jan 18;22(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s12966-025-01707-w. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 64. Jia N, Schensul JJ, Zhang M, Kong L, Yan Q, Dai Y. Effectiveness of a mobile breastfeeding monitoring tool among mothers in WeChat groups on breastfeeding exclusivity and self-efficacy: intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses of a randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2025 Aug 15;27(1):e67024. doi: 10.2196/67024. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 65. Jiang N, Zhao A, Rogers ES, et al. Feasibility and preliminary effects of a social media–based peer-group mobile messaging smoking cessation intervention among Chinese immigrants who smoke: pilot randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2024 Jul 22;12:e59496. doi: 10.2196/59496. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 66. Jocson RM, Alampay LP, Lachman JM, et al. Feasibility and acceptability of a digital parent group chat intervention to prevent child and adolescent maltreatment in the Philippines. Int J Psychol. 2024 Dec;59(6):832–840. doi: 10.1002/ijop.13148. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 67. Kang G, Zhang H, Zhou J, Wan D. The WeChat platform-based health education improves health outcomes among patients with stable coronary artery disease. Patient Educ Couns. 2023 Jun;111:107704. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2023.107704. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 68. Keramatikerman M, Varaei S, Vaezi M, Sayadi L. Peer support-based online education, burden of care and quality of life among family caregivers of patients with leukaemia: non-randomised clinical trial. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2024 Dec 19;14(e3):e2827–e2835. doi: 10.1136/spcare-2023-004610. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 69. Kiirya Y, Kitaka S, Kalyango J, et al. Acceptability of an online peer support group as a strategy to improve antiretroviral therapy adherence among young people in Kampala district, Uganda: qualitative findings. BMC Infect Dis. 2025 Apr 3;25(1):461. doi: 10.1186/s12879-025-10831-8. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 70. Lee H, Lee H, Kim Y, Kim S, Lee YM. Network support using social networking services to increase exercise adherence among Korean-Chinese middle-aged migrant women: mixed methods study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Nov 5;8(11):e19159. doi: 10.2196/19159. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 71. Liao Q, Fielding R, Cheung YTD, Lian J, Yuan J, Lam WWT. Effectiveness and parental acceptability of social-networking interventions for promoting seasonal influenza vaccination among young children: a randomized control trial (Preprint) J Med Internet Res. 2020 Feb 28;22(2):e16427. doi: 10.2196/16427. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 72. Lieberman MA. Psychological characteristics of people with Parkinson’s disease who prematurely drop out of professionally led Internet chat support groups. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2007 Dec;10(6):741–748. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2007.9956. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 73. Lin BS, Li YY, Qiao C, et al. Implementation of WeChat ‐based patient–doctor interaction in the management of Helicobacter pylori infection: a propensity score matching analysis. J Dig Dis. 2022 May;23(5-6):280–287. doi: 10.1111/1751-2980.13114. doi. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 74. Mendivil-Aguayo P, Rivera M, Armendariz D, et al. Zoom & WhatsApp digital information and communication technologies (ICTs) enhance community engaged research with women immigrants from Mexico. [17-03-2026];J Community Pract. 2024 32(2):212–237. doi: 10.1080/10705422.2024.2351935. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10705422.2024.2351935 URL. Accessed. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 75. Mirshahi A, Bakitas M, Khoshavi M, et al. The impact of an integrated early palliative care telehealth intervention on the quality of life of heart failure patients: a randomized controlled feasibility study. BMC Palliat Care. 2024 Jan 23;23(1):22. doi: 10.1186/s12904-024-01348-z. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 76. Mohebbi P, Maleki A, Ebrahimi L, Mirzaeyan H. The effect of group counseling based on positive psychology on the WhatsApp social media platform on the severity of premenstrual syndrome symptoms: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Womens Health. 2024 Nov 9;24(1):600. doi: 10.1186/s12905-024-03437-w. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 77. Owusu GP, Dordoye SAY, Asigbey S, Dordoye EK. WhatsApp as a tool for psychiatric crisis management: lessons from a Ghanaian support group. BMC Psychiatry. 2025 Jul 11;25(1):694. doi: 10.1186/s12888-025-07068-9. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 78. Pankiv E, Achaibar K, Hossain A, Fiadjoe JE, Matava CT. The role of WhatsAppTM in pediatric difficult airway management: a study from the PeDI Collaborative. Pediatr Anesth. 2023;33:1001–1011. doi: 10.1111/pan.14760. doi. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 79. Rakhshani T, Dolatkhah SM, Kashfi SM, Khani Jeihooni A. The effect of a self-learned virtual learning package on knowledge, attitude, and self-care behaviors of COVID-19 in people referred to health and treatment centers. BMC Public Health. 2024 Jun 26;24(1):1710. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-19233-y. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 80. Ricci ÉC, Dimov T, da Silva Cassais T, Dellbrügger AP. Occupational therapy in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic: peer support groups as mental health intervention strategy. World Fed Occup Ther Bull. 2021 Jan 2;77(1):33–35. doi: 10.1080/14473828.2020.1840767. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 81. Rolando S, Arrighetti G, Fornero E, Farucci O, Beccaria F. Telegram as a space for peer-led harm reduction communities and netreach interventions. Contemp Drug Probl. 2023 Jun;50(2):190–201. doi: 10.1177/00914509221145196. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 82. Ronen K, Mugo C, Kaggiah A, et al. Facilitated WhatsApp support groups for youth living with HIV in Nairobi, Kenya: single-arm pilot intervention study. JMIR Form Res. 2023 Nov 13;7:e49174. doi: 10.2196/49174. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 83. Saleha N, Delfina R, Nurlaili N, Ardiansyah F, Nafratilova M. Online affirmation and peer support are effective for reducing medical personnel stress in dealing with Covid-19 patients. [17-03-2026];Unnes J Public Health. 2021 Jul 15;10(2):151–161. doi: 10.15294/ujph.v10i2.42861. https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/ujph/issue/view/2040 URL. Accessed. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 84. Scholl J, Kohls E, Görges F, et al. Acceptability and feasibility of the transfer of face-to-face group therapy to online group chats in a psychiatric outpatient setting during the COVID-19 pandemic: longitudinal observational study. JMIR Form Res. 2021 Jul 23;5(7):e27865. doi: 10.2196/27865. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 85. Shi D, Liu C, Huang L, Chen XQ. Post-abortion needs-based education via the WeChat platform to lessen fear and encourage effective contraception: a post-abortion care service intervention-controlled trial. BMC Womens Health. 2024 Mar 5;24(1):159. doi: 10.1186/s12905-024-03004-3. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 86. Skeen S, Marlow M, du Toit S, et al. Using WhatsApp support groups to promote responsive caregiving, caregiver mental health and child development in the COVID-19 era: a randomised controlled trial of a fully digital parenting intervention. Digit Health. 2023;9:20552076231203893. doi: 10.1177/20552076231203893. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 87. Stewart M, Masuda JR, Letourneau N, et al. Online support intervention for adolescents with asthma and allergies. J Asthma Allergy Educ. 2011 Dec;2(6):306–317. doi: 10.1177/2150129711402686. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 88. Sukriani LW, Arisani LG. Effecttiveness of WhatsApp group on breastfeeding practices. Indian J Forensic Med Toxicol. 2020;14:3550–3555. doi: 10.37506/ijfmt.v14i4.12178. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 89. Tabira K, Oguma Y, Yoshihara S, et al. Digital peer-supported app intervention to promote physical activity among community-dwelling older adults: nonrandomized controlled trial. JMIR Aging. 2024 May 30;7:e56184. doi: 10.2196/56184. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 90. Tanaka K, Sasai H, Wakaba K, et al. Professional dietary coaching within a group chat using a smartphone application for weight loss: a randomized controlled trial. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2018;11:339–347. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S165422. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 91. Tian Y, Zhang S, Huang F, Ma L. Comparing the efficacies of telemedicine and standard prenatal care on blood glucose control in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 May 25;9(5):e22881. doi: 10.2196/22881. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 92. Tian X, Liu Y, Zhang J, et al. Efficacy of a WeChat-based, multidisciplinary, full-course nutritional management program on the nutritional status of patients with ovarian cancer undergoing chemotherapy: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2024 Nov 4;12:e56475. doi: 10.2196/56475. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 93. Velloza J, Poovan N, Meisner A, et al. Adaptive HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis adherence interventions for young women in Johannesburg, South Africa: a sequential multiple-assignment randomised trial. Lancet HIV. 2025 Feb;12(2):e105–e117. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(24)00268-6. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 94. Wasilewski MB, Kokorelias KM, Nonoyama M, et al. The experience of family caregivers of ventilator-assisted individuals who participated in a pilot web-based peer support program: a qualitative study. Digit Health. 2022;8:20552076221134964. doi: 10.1177/20552076221134964. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 95. Weng X, Liu K, Xia Y, Song C, Guo N, Wang MP. Combined chatbot and counselor support for smoking cessation in China: a pilot, mobile-based, randomized controlled trial. Nicotine Tob Res. 2025 Dec 22;:ntaf260. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntaf260. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 96. Weng X, Song C, Liu K, Zhao S, Yang H, Wang MP. Mobile phone-based smoking-cessation intervention in patients with chronic diseases in China: a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial. Nicotine Tob Res. 2025 Feb 24;27(3):502–510. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntae230. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 97. West DS, Harvey JR, Krukowski RA, Prewitt TE, Priest J, Ashikaga T. Do individual, online motivational interviewing chat sessions enhance weight loss in a group-based, online weight control program? Obesity (Silver Spring) 2016 Nov;24(11):2334–2340. doi: 10.1002/oby.21645. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 98. West DS, Stansbury M, Krukowski RA, Harvey J. Enhancing group-based internet obesity treatment: a pilot RCT comparing video and text-based chat. Obes Sci Pract. 2019 Dec;5(6):513–520. doi: 10.1002/osp4.371. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 99. Wu Q, Kue J, Zhu X, et al. Effects of nurse-led support via WeChat, a smartphone application, for breast cancer patients after surgery: a quasi-experimental study. Telemed J E Health. 2020 Feb;26(2):226–234. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2018.0293. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 100. Wulandari R, Suwandono A, Kartasurya MI, Nugraheni SA. Postpartum care behavior improvement during COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia using mobile-health interactive message. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2022 Mar;32(2):243–254. doi: 10.4314/ejhs.v32i2.4. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 101. Xu J, Akezhuoli H, Zhou M, et al. Development and evaluation of a culturally adapted digital-platform integrated multifaceted intervention to promote the utilization of maternal healthcare services: a single-arm pilot study. Int J Equity Health. 2023 Oct 17;22(1):217. doi: 10.1186/s12939-023-02033-y. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 102. Yoshihara S, Takahashi K, Uemura C, Murakami S, Harada D, Yamato H. Effectiveness of a digital peer-supported app intervention in promoting smoking cessations: nonrandomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2025 Aug 19;13:e68638. doi: 10.2196/68638. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 103. Yoshihara S, Takahashi K, Uemura C, et al. Smoking cessation strategies for different types of cigarette users using a digital peer-supported app and nicotine aids: prospective study. J Med Internet Res. 2025 Aug 5;27(1):e75876. doi: 10.2196/75876. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 104. Yuan LP, Yu ZH, Zhang XC, et al. The psychological effect of forming WeChat groups between medical staff and patients with COVID-19. Front Public Health. 2021;9:586465. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.586465. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 105. Yurtsal B, Hasdemir Ö. Effects of the WhatsApp midwife breastfeeding support line on early postpartum breastfeeding process of mothers. Health Care Women Int. 2022 Dec;43(12):1433–1448. doi: 10.1080/07399332.2021.1972303. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 106. Zanoni BC, Archary M, Sibaya T, et al. Acceptability, feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of the mHealth intervention, InTSHA, on retention in care and viral suppression among adolescents with HIV in South Africa: a pilot randomized clinical trial. AIDS Care. 2024 Jul;36(7):983–992. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2024.2361240. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 107. Zerwas SC, Watson HJ, Hofmeier SM, et al. CBT4BN: a randomized controlled trial of online chat and face-to-face group therapy for bulimia nervosa. Psychother Psychosom. 2017;86(1):47–53. doi: 10.1159/000449025. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 108. Zhang X, Chen X, Kourkoumelis N, Gao R, Li G, Zhu C. A social media-promoted educational community of joint replacement patients using the WeChat App: survey study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Mar 18;9(3):e18763. doi: 10.2196/18763. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 109. Zhang B, Kalampakorn S, Powwattana A, Sillabutra J, Liu G. A transtheoretical model-based online intervention to improve medication adherence for Chinese adults newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes: a mixed-method study. J Prim Care Community Health. 2024;15:21501319241263657. doi: 10.1177/21501319241263657. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 110. Zotti F, Dalessandri D, Salgarello S, et al. Usefulness of an app in improving oral hygiene compliance in adolescent orthodontic patients. Angle Orthod. 2016 Jan;86(1):101–107. doi: 10.2319/010915-19.1. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 111. Zainuddin Z, Abdullah AZ, Jafar N, et al. Health literacy brisk walking exercise on clinical outcomes of blood sugar in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Indonesia. Pharmacogn J. 2023 Apr 30;15(2):433–438. doi: 10.5530/pj.2023.15.68. https://phcogj.com/v15/i2 URL. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 112. Djouma Nembot F, Buh Nkum C, Ateudjieu D, et al. Effectiveness of a WhatsApp-based communication on improving access to antenatal care interventions in sub-Saharan Africa: a randomized control health facility trial. Digit Health. 2025;11:20552076251379349. doi: 10.1177/20552076251379349. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 113. Xie B, Li Y, Hwang WC, et al. A culturally tailored diabetes self-management education program with mobile health integration for Chinese Americans with type 2 diabetes: development and pilot evaluation study. JMIR Form Res. 2026 Feb 3;10:e77372. doi: 10.2196/77372. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 114. Jackson L, Drury R, Paolo Azzaro G, et al. Investigating the acceptability and feasibility of three online interventions for caregivers of infants with feeding difficulties. Inquiry. 2025;62:469580251375911. doi: 10.1177/00469580251375911. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 115. Liu X, Liu T, Chen T, Ma R. Efficacy of a digital peer support program on weight management and mental health in university students with preobesity: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2026 Jan 21;14:e78960. doi: 10.2196/78960. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 116. Hoffman S, Hanass-Hancock J, Harrison AD, et al. Masibambane (Let Us Work Together), Ladies Chat: pilot evaluation of an online, gender-enhanced, group-interactive workshop to promote oral PrEP to young South African women. AIDS Behav. 2025 Sep;29(9):2932–2945. doi: 10.1007/s10461-025-04747-2. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 117. Goh K, Contractor S, Van Belle S. A realist-informed review of digital empowerment strategies for adolescents to improve their sexual and reproductive health and well-being. J Urban Health. 2022 Dec;99(6):1141–1156. doi: 10.1007/s11524-022-00678-8. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 118. Schlief M, Saunders KRK, Appleton R, et al. Synthesis of the evidence on what works for whom in telemental health: rapid realist review. Interact J Med Res. 2022 Sep 29;11(2):e38239. doi: 10.2196/38239. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 119. Shahid N, Parker G, Bielecki JM, Rac V, Berta W. A realist review of factors critical for the implementation of eHealth in chronic disease management. BMC Health Serv Res. 2025 Apr 2;25(1):496. doi: 10.1186/s12913-025-12361-0. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 120. Ho CWL, Caals K, Zhang H. Heralding the digitalization of life in post-pandemic East Asian societies. J Bioeth Inq. 2020 Dec;17(4):657–661. doi: 10.1007/s11673-020-10050-7. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 121. Shi J, Kim HK, Salmon CT, Tandoc EC, Goh ZH. Cultural tightness-looseness and normative social influence in eight Asian countries: associations of individual and collective norms with vaccination intentions. Soc Sci Med. 2024 Jan;340:116431. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116431. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 122. Dans A, Ng N, Varghese C, Tai ES, Firestone R, Bonita R. The rise of chronic non-communicable diseases in southeast Asia: time for action. Lancet. 2011 Feb 19;377(9766):680–689. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61506-1. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 123. Pradhan J, Pai M, Dwivedi R, et al. Burden of non-communicable diseases in South Asia: a decomposition analysis. J Health Popul Nutr. 2025 Apr 18;44(1):124. doi: 10.1186/s41043-025-00827-0. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 124. Park S, Humphry J. Exclusion by design: intersections of social, digital and data exclusion. Inf Commun Soc. 2019 Jun 7;22(7):934–953. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2019.1606266. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 125. Ng MY, Olgin JE, Marcus GM, Lyles CR, Pletcher MJ. Email-based recruitment into the health eHeart study: cohort analysis of invited eligible patients. J Med Internet Res. 2023 Dec 22;25(1):e51238. doi: 10.2196/51238. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 126. Krukowski RA, Ross KM, Western MJ, et al. Digital health interventions for all? Examining inclusivity across all stages of the digital health intervention research process. Trials. 2024 Jan 30;25(1):98. doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-07937-w. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 127. Burgess RA, Jennings HM, Mathias K, et al. Nurturing transformative participation: a participatory realist review of mental health interventions in low resource settings. SSM - Ment Health. 2025 Jun;7:100416. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmmh.2025.100416. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 128. Pasitselska O, Buehling K, Gagrčin E. Chat groups as local civic infrastructure: a case study of “Solidary neighborhood help” Telegram groups during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. New Media Soc. 2025 Jul 13; doi: 10.1177/14614448251349426. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 129. Wilson KR, Roskill OM, Mahr J. Mutual aid using digital technology: a case study of virtual community organizing during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Community Pract. 2022 Jul 3;30(3):255–278. doi: 10.1080/10705422.2022.2102101. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 130. Isari D, Pontiggia A, Virili F. Working with tweets vs. working with chats: an experiment on collaborative problem solving. Comput Human Behav. 2016 May;58:130–140. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.052. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 131. Wang D, Wang H, Yu M, Ashktorab Z, Tan M. Group chat ecology in enterprise instant messaging: how employees collaborate through multi-user chat channels on slack. [21-02-2026];Proc ACM Hum-Comput Interact. 2022 Mar 30;6(CSCW1):1–14. doi: 10.1145/3512941. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3512941 URL. Accessed. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 132. Rafikova A, Voronin A. Human–chatbot communication: a systematic review of psychological studies. AI Soc. 2025 Oct;40(7):5389–5408. doi: 10.1007/s00146-025-02277-y. doi. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 133. Chao EC, Zhang M, Houle MA, Rataj H. Collaboratively designing an app for a more personalized, community-endorsed continuous glucose monitoring onboarding experience: an early study. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2024 Jan;18(1):14–21. doi: 10.1177/19322968231213654. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 134. Jenness JL, Bhattacharya A, Kientz JA, Munson SA, Nagar RR. Lessons learned from designing an asynchronous remote community approach for behavioral activation intervention for teens. Behav Res Ther. 2022 Apr;151:104065. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2022.104065. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 135. Wang L, Miller LC. Just-in-the-Moment Adaptive Interventions (JITAI): a meta-analytical review. Health Commun. 2020 Nov;35(12):1531–1544. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2019.1652388. doi. Medline. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials Multimedia Appendix 1. Initial Program Theories for group chat–based health interventions (guided by social cognitive theory). jmir-v28-e88911-s001.docx (15KB, docx) DOI: 10.2196/88911 Multimedia Appendix 2. Cross-cutting facilitators and barriers for activating Initial Program Theory mechanisms in group chat–based interventions. jmir-v28-e88911-s002.docx (15.4KB, docx) DOI: 10.2196/88911 Multimedia Appendix 3. Final program theory synthesizing context-mechanism-outcome configurations in group chat health interventions was analyzed. jmir-v28-e88911-s003.doc (45KB, doc) DOI: 10.2196/88911 Checklist 1. PRISMA-ScR checklist. jmir-v28-e88911-s004.docx (107.1KB, docx) DOI: 10.2196/88911 Checklist 2. PRISMA-S checklist. jmir-v28-e88911-s005.docx (18KB, docx) DOI: 10.2196/88911 Articles from Journal of Medical Internet Research are provided here courtesy of JMIR Publications Inc. ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (966.2 KB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top