Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29267396›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Users' thoughts and opinions about a self-regulation-based eHealth intervention targeting physical activity and the intake of fruit and vegetables: A qualitative study.

Louise Poppe, Celien Van der Mispel, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij, Maïté Verloigne, Samyah Shadid, Geert Crombez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

6 authors.

Louise PoppeDepartment of Movement and Sports Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-9285-6962
Celien Van der MispelDepartment of Movement and Sports Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Ilse De BourdeaudhuijDepartment of Movement and Sports Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Maïté VerloigneDepartment of Movement and Sports Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Samyah ShadidDepartment of Endocrinology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Geert CrombezDepartment of Experimental-Clinical and Health Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEHealth interventions are effective in changing health behaviours, such as increasing physical activity and altering dietary habits, but suffer from high attrition rates. In order to create interventions that are adapted to end-users, in-depth investigations about their opinions and preferences are required. As opinions and preferences may vary for different target groups, we explored these in two groups: the general population and a clinical sample.

methodsTwenty adults from the general population (mean age = 42.65, 11 women) and twenty adults with type 2 diabetes (mean age = 64.30, 12 women) performed 'MyPlan 1.0', which is a self-regulation-based eHealth intervention designed to increase physical activity and the intake of fruit and vegetables in the general population. The opinions and preferences of end-users were explored using a think aloud procedure and a questionnaire. During a home visit, participants were invited to think aloud while performing 'MyPlan 1.0'. The thoughts were transcribed verbatim and inductive thematic analysis was applied.

resultsBoth groups had similar opinions regarding health behaviours and 'MyPlan 1.0'. Participants generally liked the website, but often experienced it as time-consuming. Furthermore, they regularly mentioned that a mobile application would be useful to remind them about their goals on a daily basis. Finally, users' ideas about how to pursue health behaviours often hindered them to correctly use the website.

conclusionsAlthough originally created for the general population, 'MyPlan 1.0' can also be used in adults with type 2 diabetes. Nevertheless, more adaptations are needed to make the eHealth intervention more convenient and less time-consuming. Furthermore, users' ideas regarding a healthy lifestyle should be taken into account when designing online interventions.

Indexed as

DietExerciseFruitTelemedicineVegetablesAgedDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID29267396
PMCPMC5739439

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.