Usage data on research outputs such as books and journals is well established in the scholarly community. Yet, as research impact is derived from a broader set of scholarly outputs, such as data, code, and multimedia, more holistic usage and impact metrics could inform national innovation and research policy. While usage data reporting standards, such as Project COUNTER, provide the basis for shared statistics reporting practice, mandated access to publicly funded research has increased the demand for impact metrics and analytics. In this context, stakeholders are exploring how to scaffold and strengthen shared infrastructure to better support the trusted, multistakeholder exchange of usage data across a variety of outputs. In April 2023, a workshop on Exploring National Infrastructure for Public Access and Impact Reporting supported by the United States (US) National Science Foundation (NSF) explored these issues. This paper contextualizes the resources shared and recommendations generated in the workshop.

Downloading a mobile health (m-health) app on your smartphone does not mean you will ever use it. Telling another person about an app does not mean you like it. Using an online intervention does not mean it has had an impact on your well-being. Yet we consistently rely on downloads, clicks, ‘likes’ and other usage and popularity metrics to measure m-health app engagement. Doing so misses the complexity of how people perceive and use m-health apps in everyday life to manage mental health conditions. This article questions commonly used behavioural metrics of engagement in mental health research and care, and proposes a more comprehensive approach to measuring in-app engagement.