Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23246790›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2012

Differences in reach and attrition between Web-based and print-delivered tailored interventions among adults over 50 years of age: clustered randomized trial.

Denise Astrid Peels, Catherine Bolman, Rianne Henrica Johanna Golsteijn, Hein De Vries, Aart Nicolaas Mudde, Maartje Marieke van Stralen, Lilian Lechner

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Denise Astrid PeelsOpen University of The Netherlands, Department of Psychology, Heerlen, Netherlands. denise.peels@ou.nl
Catherine Bolman
Rianne Henrica Johanna Golsteijn
Hein De Vries
Aart Nicolaas Mudde
Maartje Marieke van Stralen
Lilian Lechner

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Internet has the potential to provide large populations with individual health promotion advice at a relatively low cost. Despite the high rates of Internet access, actual reach by Web-based interventions is often disappointingly low, and differences in use between demographic subgroups are present. Furthermore, Web-based interventions often have to deal with high rates of attrition.

objectiveThis study aims to assess user characteristics related to participation and attrition when comparing Web-based and print-delivered tailored interventions containing similar content and thereby to provide recommendations in choosing the appropriate delivery mode for a particular target audience.

methodsWe studied the distribution of a Web-based and a print-delivered version of the Active Plus intervention in a clustered randomized controlled trial (RCT). Participants were recruited via direct mailing within the participating Municipal Health Council regions and randomized to the printed or Web-based intervention by their region. Based on the answers given in a prior assessment, participants received tailored advice on 3 occasions: (1) within 2 weeks after the baseline, (2) 2 months after the baseline, and (3) within 4 months after the baseline (based on a second assessment at 3 months). The baseline (printed or Web-based) results were analyzed using ANOVA and chi-square tests to establish the differences in user characteristics between both intervention groups. We used logistic regression analyses to study the interaction between the user characteristics and the delivery mode in the prediction of dropout rate within the intervention period.

resultsThe printed intervention resulted in a higher participation rate (19%) than the Web-based intervention (12%). Participants of the Web-based intervention were significantly younger (P<.001), more often men (P=.01), had a higher body mass index (BMI) (P=.001) and a lower intention to be physically active (P=.03) than participants of the printed intervention. The dropout rate was significantly higher in the Web-based intervention group (53%) compared to the print-delivered intervention (39%, P<.001). A low intention to be physically active was a strong predictor for dropout within both delivery modes (P<.001). The difference in dropout rate between the Web-based and the printed intervention was not explained by user characteristics.

conclusionsThe reach of the same tailored physical activity (PA) intervention in a printed or Web-based delivery mode differed between sociodemographic subgroups of participants over 50 years of age. Although the reach of the Web-based intervention is lower, Web-based interventions can be a good channel to reach high-risk populations (lower PA intention and higher BMI). While the dropout rate was significantly higher in the Web-based intervention group, no specific user characteristics explained the difference in dropout rates between the delivery modes. More research is needed to determine what caused the high rate of dropout in the Web-based intervention.

trial registrationDutch Trial Register (NTR): 2297: http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2297 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/65TkwoESp).

Indexed as

InternetHumansMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID23246790
PMCPMC3803160

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.