Dejonghe Lea Anna Lisa, Rudolf Kevin, Becker Jennifer, Stassen Gerrit, Froboese Ingo, Schaller Andrea
1Institute of Movement Therapy and Movement-Orientated Prevention and Rehabilitation, German Sport University Cologne, Am Sportpark Muengersdorf 6, 50933 Cologne, Germany.
2Department of Community Health, University of Applied Sciences, Gesundheitscampus 6-8, 44801 Bochum, Germany.
BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2020 Feb 3;12:2. doi: 10.1186/s13102-019-0154-4. eCollection 2020.
Multicomponent interventions combined with health coaching are widely recommended to improve a healthy lifestyle. The aim of the present study was to analyse the usage and acceptance of a multicomponent intervention (telephone, web and face-to-face coaching) for low back pain patients, and thereby gain an understanding of why this intervention was not as effective as expected.
A secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial, aimed at promoting physical activity, was conducted. It was a cross-sectional study based on data of a multicomponent intervention group (baseline = 201 participants). For evaluating the usage and acceptance, descriptive statistics were applied.
Over half ( = 118) of the patients participated at least once in the telephone coaching. Approximately half of the participants (44 of 90) rated the telephone coaching as "good".34 of 92 (37%) participants reported of visiting the web-platform. The web-platform was comprehensible for nearly one-quarter ( = 8 of 33) and very useful for one participant.The face-to-face-contact was rated highly (range: 79.4-88.2 out of 100).
Usage of the telephone coaching approach was moderate with even fewer participants visiting the web-platform. In addition, these approaches were not rated as very useful. The acceptance of the face-to-face contact was high.Since the usage and acceptance could influence the effectiveness, utilisation and acceptance studies might help to explain the reason for non-effective lifestyle interventions. Therefore, more studies analysing the usage and acceptance are needed. To improve the usage and acceptance, a stronger participatory orientation in the design of interventions and the integration of face-to-face contact could be helpful.
多组分干预结合健康指导被广泛推荐用于改善健康生活方式。本研究旨在分析针对腰痛患者的多组分干预（电话、网络和面对面指导）的使用情况和接受度，从而了解为何该干预效果未达预期。
对一项旨在促进身体活动的随机对照试验进行二次分析。这是一项基于多组分干预组数据（基线=201名参与者）的横断面研究。为评估使用情况和接受度，应用了描述性统计方法。
超过半数（=118）的患者至少参加过一次电话指导。约半数参与者（90人中的44人）将电话指导评为“良好”。92名参与者中有34人（37%）报告访问过网络平台。近四分之一的人（33人中的8人）认为网络平台易于理解，只有一名参与者认为其非常有用。面对面接触的评价很高（评分范围：100分中的79.4 - 88.2分）。
电话指导方法的使用程度适中，访问网络平台的参与者更少。此外，这些方法的评价并非非常有用。面对面接触的接受度很高。由于使用情况和接受度可能影响效果，利用和接受度研究可能有助于解释生活方式干预无效的原因。因此，需要更多分析使用情况和接受度的研究。为提高使用情况和接受度，在干预设计中采用更强的参与导向以及整合面对面接触可能会有所帮助。
