Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32343245›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2020

Patients' User Experience of a Blended Face-to-Face and Web-Based Smoking Cessation Treatment: Qualitative Study.

Lutz Siemer, Somaya Ben Allouch, Marcel E Pieterse, Marjolein Brusse-Keizer, Robbert Sanderman, Marloes G Postel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Lutz SiemerTechnology, Health & Care Research Group, Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3019-9113
Somaya Ben AllouchTechnology, Health & Care Research Group, Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3502-4016
Marcel E PieterseCentre for eHealth and Well-Being Research, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6900-3088
Marjolein Brusse-KeizerMedical School Twente, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1781-5794
Robbert SandermanCentre for eHealth and Well-Being Research, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0823-1159
Marloes G PostelCentre for eHealth and Well-Being Research, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4027-6867

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBlended web-based and face-to-face (F2F) treatment is a promising electronic health service because the strengths of one mode of delivery should compensate for the weaknesses of the other.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to explore this compensation by examining patients' user experience (UX) in a blended smoking cessation treatment (BSCT) in routine care.

methodsData on patients' UX were collected through in-depth interviews (n=10) at an outpatient smoking cessation clinic in the Netherlands. A content analysis of the semantic domains was used to analyze patients' UX. To describe the UX, the Hassenzahl UX model was applied, examining 4 of the 5 key elements of UX from a user's perspective: (1) patients' standards and expectations, (2) apparent character (pragmatic and hedonic attributes), (3) usage situation, and (4) consequences (appeal, emotions, and behavior).

resultsBSCT appeared to be a mostly positively experienced service. Patients had a positive-pragmatic standard and neutral-open expectation toward BSCT at the treatment start. The pragmatic attributes of the F2F sessions were mostly perceived as positive, whereas the pragmatic attributes of the web sessions were perceived as both positive and negative. For the hedonic attributes, there seemed to be a difference between the F2F and web sessions. Specifically, the hedonic attributes of the web sessions were experienced as mostly negative, whereas those of the F2F sessions were experienced as mostly positive. For the usage situation, the physical and social contexts were experienced positively, whereas the task and technical contexts were experienced negatively. Nevertheless, the consequential appeal of BSCT was positive. However, the consequential emotions and behavior varied, ultimately resulting in diverse combinations of consequential appeal, emotions, and behavior (positive, negative, and mixed).

conclusionsThis study provided insights into the UX of a blended treatment, and the results support the expectation that in a blended treatment, the strengths of one mode of delivery may compensate for the weaknesses of the other. However, in this certain setting, this is mainly achieved in only one way: F2F sessions compensated for the weaknesses of the web sessions. As a practical conclusion, this may mean that the web sessions, supported by the strengths of the F2F sessions, offer an interesting approach for further improving the blended treatment. Our theoretical findings reflect the relevance of the aspects of hedonism, such as fun, joy, or happiness in the UX, which were not mentioned in relation to the web sessions and were only scarcely mentioned in relation to the F2F sessions. Future research should further investigate the role of hedonistic aspects in a blended treatment and whether increased enjoyment of a blended treatment could increase treatment adherence and, ultimately, effectiveness.

Indexed as

blended treatmentcognitive therapypatient perspectivesmokingsmoking cessationtobaccouser experience

Identifiers

PMID32343245
PMCPMC7301265

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.