Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29170146›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2017

An eHealth Intervention to Promote Physical Activity and Social Network of Single, Chronically Impaired Older Adults: Adaptation of an Existing Intervention Using Intervention Mapping.

Janet M Boekhout, Denise A Peels, Brenda Aj Berendsen, Catherine Aw Bolman, Lilian Lechner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. "Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Janet M BoekhoutFaculty of Psychology and Educational Science, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9636-6060
Denise A PeelsFaculty of Psychology and Educational Science, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0165-4677
Brenda Aj BerendsenFaculty of Psychology and Educational Science, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5717-0981
Catherine Aw BolmanFaculty of Psychology and Educational Science, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9209-6449
Lilian LechnerFaculty of Psychology and Educational Science, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5160-7086

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEspecially for single older adults with chronic diseases, physical inactivity and a poor social network are regarded as serious threats to their health and independence. The Active Plus intervention is an automated computer-tailored eHealth intervention that has been proven effective to promote physical activity (PA) in the general population of adults older than 50 years.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to report on the methods and results of the systematic adaptation of Active Plus to the wishes and needs of the subgroup of single people older than 65 years who have one or more chronic diseases, as this specific target population may encounter specific challenges regarding PA and social network.

methodsThe Intervention Mapping (IM) protocol was used to systematically adapt the existing intervention to optimally suit this specific target population. A literature study was performed, and quantitative as well as qualitative data were derived from health care professionals (by questionnaires, n=10) and the target population (by focus group interviews, n=14), which were then systematically integrated into the adapted intervention.

resultsAs the health problems and the targeted behavior are largely the same in the original and adapted intervention, the outcome of the needs assessment was that the performance objectives remained the same. As found in the literature study and in data derived from health professionals and focus groups, the relative importance and operationalization of the relevant psychosocial determinants related to these objectives are different from the original intervention, resulting in a refinement of the change objectives to optimally fit the specific target population. This refinement also resulted in changes in the practical applications, program components, intervention materials, and the evaluation and implementation strategy for the subgroup of single, chronically impaired older adults.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates that the adaptation of an existing intervention is an intensive process in which adopting the IM protocol is an invaluable tool. The study provides a broad insight in adapting interventions aimed at single older adults with a chronic disease. It is concluded that even when the new target population is a sizable segment of the original target population, the adapted intervention still needs considerable changes to optimally fit the needs and situational differences of the narrower target population.

Indexed as

chronic diseaseeHealthexerciseIntervention Mappingolder adultssinglesocial network

Identifiers

PMID29170146
PMCPMC5721211

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.