Berg Marie, Linden Karolina, Adolfsson Annsofie, Sparud Lundin Carina, Ranerup Agneta
Centre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC), Institute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
School of Health Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
J Med Internet Res. 2018 May 2;20(5):e160. doi: 10.2196/jmir.9665.
Numerous Web-based interventions have been implemented to promote health and health-related behaviors in persons with chronic conditions. Using randomized controlled trials to evaluate such interventions creates a range of challenges, which in turn can influence the study outcome. Applying a critical perspective when evaluating Web-based health interventions is important.
The objective of this study was to critically analyze and discuss the challenges of conducting a Web-based health intervention as a randomized controlled trial.
The MODIAB-Web study was critically examined using an exploratory case study methodology and the framework for analysis offered through the Persuasive Systems Design model. Focus was on technology, study design, and Web-based support usage, with special focus on the forum for peer support. Descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis were used.
The persuasive content and technological elements in the design of the randomized controlled trial included all four categories of the Persuasive Systems Design model, but not all design principles were implemented. The study duration was extended to a period of four and a half years. Of 81 active participants in the intervention group, a maximum of 36 women were simultaneously active. User adherence varied greatly with a median of 91 individual log-ins. The forum for peer support was used by 63 participants. Although only about one-third of the participants interacted in the forum, there was a fairly rich exchange of experiences and advice between them. Thus, adherence in terms of social interactions was negatively affected by limited active participation due to prolonged recruitment process and randomization effects. Lessons learned from this critical analysis are that technology and study design matter and might mutually influence each other. In Web-based interventions, the use of design theories enables utilization of the full potential of technology and promotes adherence. The randomization element in a randomized controlled trial design can become a barrier to achieving a critical mass of user interactions in Web-based interventions, especially when social support is included. For extended study periods, the technology used may need to be adapted in line with newly available technical options to avoid the risk of becoming outdated in the user realm, which in turn might jeopardize study validity in terms of randomized controlled trial designs.
On the basis of lessons learned in this randomized controlled trial, we give recommendations to consider when designing and evaluating Web-based health interventions.
已实施了众多基于网络的干预措施,以促进慢性病患者的健康及与健康相关的行为。使用随机对照试验来评估此类干预措施会带来一系列挑战,进而可能影响研究结果。在评估基于网络的健康干预措施时运用批判性视角很重要。
本研究的目的是批判性地分析和讨论将基于网络的健康干预作为随机对照试验开展时所面临的挑战。
采用探索性案例研究方法及通过说服性系统设计模型提供的分析框架,对MODIAB-Web研究进行批判性审视。重点关注技术、研究设计和基于网络的支持使用情况,特别关注同伴支持论坛。使用了描述性统计和定性内容分析方法。
随机对照试验设计中的说服性内容和技术要素涵盖了说服性系统设计模型的所有四个类别,但并非所有设计原则都得到了实施。研究持续时间延长至四年半。在干预组的81名活跃参与者中,最多时有36名女性同时活跃。用户依从性差异很大,个体登录中位数为91次。63名参与者使用了同伴支持论坛。尽管只有约三分之一的参与者在论坛中互动,但他们之间有相当丰富的经验和建议交流。因此,由于招募过程延长和随机化效应导致的有限积极参与对社交互动方面的依从性产生了负面影响。从这一批判性分析中学到的经验教训是,技术和研究设计很重要,且可能相互影响。在基于网络的干预措施中,设计理论的运用能够充分发挥技术潜力并促进依从性。随机对照试验设计中的随机化要素可能成为在基于网络的干预措施中实现足够数量用户互动的障碍,尤其是当包含社会支持时。对于延长的研究周期,所使用的技术可能需要根据新出现的技术选项进行调整,以避免在用户领域过时的风险,这反过来可能会危及随机对照试验设计方面的研究有效性。
基于在这项随机对照试验中吸取的经验教训,我们给出了在设计和评估基于网络的健康干预措施时应考虑的建议。