Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2016
mHealth or eHealth? Efficacy, Use, and Appreciation of a Web-Based Computer-Tailored Physical Activity Intervention for Dutch Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Influencing the Acceptance and Adoption of Mobile Health Apps by Physicians During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Electronic, mobile and telehealth tools for vulnerable patients with chronic disease: a systematic review and realist synthesis.BMJ open · 2018Pooled it
- Lipidemic Profile Changes over a Two-Year Intervention Period: Who Benefited Most from the Feel4Diabetes Program?Nutrients · 2020Trial
- Lifestyle Changes Observed among Adults Participating in a Family- and Community-Based Intervention for Diabetes Prevention in Europe: The 1Nutrients · 2020Trial
- Efficacy of a Self-Regulation-Based Electronic and Mobile Health Intervention Targeting an Active Lifestyle in Adults Having Type 2 Diabetes and in Adults Aged 50 Years or Older: Two Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Trial
- Article
- Predictors of dropping out from a home tele-exercise programme: A cohort study derived from a randomised controlled trial.Health promotion perspectives · 2024Article
- Acceptability and Usability of a Theory-Driven Intervention via Email to Promote Physical Activity in Women Who Are Overweight or Obese: Substudy Within a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Nonusage Attrition of Adolescents in an mHealth Promotion Intervention and the Role of Socioeconomic Status: Secondary Analysis of a 2-Arm Cluster-Controlled Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Article
- Engagement With Web-Based Fitness Videos on YouTube and Instagram During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Longitudinal Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- A Study of eHealth from the Perspective of Social Sciences.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Effectiveness of a web-based computer-tailored intervention promoting physical activity for adults from Quebec City: a randomized controlled trial.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2020Article
- Effects of Incentives on Adherence to a Web-Based Intervention Promoting Physical Activity: Naturalistic Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Engaging Users in the Behavior Change Process With Digitalized Motivational Interviewing and Gamification: Development and Feasibility Testing of the Precious App.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Implementation Tells Us More Beyond Pooled Estimates: Secondary Analysis of a Multicountry mHealth Trial to Reduce Blood Pressure.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2018Article
- Comparing usage of a web and app stress management intervention: An observational study.Internet interventions · 2018Article
- Monitoring Energy Balance in Breast Cancer Survivors Using a Mobile App: Reliability Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2018Article
- mHealth and telemedicine apps: in search of a common regulation.Ecancermedicalscience · 2018Article
- Trends and Progress in Human Factors and Organizational Issues in 2016: Learning from Experience.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUntil a few years ago, Web-based computer-tailored interventions were almost exclusively delivered via computer (eHealth). However, nowadays, interventions delivered via mobile phones (mHealth) are an interesting alternative for health promotion, as they may more easily reach people 24/7.
objectiveThe first aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of an mHealth and an eHealth version of a Web-based computer-tailored physical activity intervention with a control group. The second aim was to assess potential differences in use and appreciation between the 2 versions.
methodsWe collected data among 373 Dutch adults at 5 points in time (baseline, after 1 week, after 2 weeks, after 3 weeks, and after 6 months). We recruited participants from a Dutch online research panel and randomly assigned them to 1 of 3 conditions: eHealth (n=138), mHealth (n=108), or control condition (n=127). All participants were asked to complete questionnaires at the 5 points in time. Participants in the eHealth and mHealth group received fully automated tailored feedback messages about their current level of physical activity. Furthermore, they received personal feedback aimed at increasing their amount of physical activity when needed. We used analysis of variance and linear regression analyses to examine differences between the 2 study groups and the control group with regard to efficacy, use, and appreciation.
resultsParticipants receiving feedback messages (eHealth and mHealth together) were significantly more physically active after 6 months than participants in the control group (B=8.48, df=2, P=.03, Cohen d=0.27). We found a small effect size favoring the eHealth condition over the control group (B=6.13, df=2, P=.09, Cohen d=0.21). The eHealth condition had lower dropout rates (117/138, 84.8%) than the mHealth condition (81/108, 75.0%) and the control group (91/127, 71.7%). Furthermore, in terms of usability and appreciation, the eHealth condition outperformed the mHealth condition with regard to participants receiving (t
conclusionsWe tested 2 Web-based computer-tailored physical activity intervention versions (mHealth and eHealth) against a control condition with regard to efficacy, use, usability, and appreciation. The overall effect was mainly caused by the more effective eHealth intervention. The mHealth app was rated inferior to the eHealth version with regard to usability and appreciation. More research is needed to assess how both methods can complement each other.
trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register: NTR4503; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=4503 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6lEi1x40s).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.