Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33258776›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2020

A Mobile- and Web-Based Health Intervention Program for Diabetes and Prediabetes Self-Management (BetaMe/Melon): Process Evaluation Following a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Virginia Signal, Melissa McLeod, James Stanley, Jeannine Stairmand, Nitin Sukumaran, Donna-Marie Thompson, Kelly Henderson, Cheryl Davies, Jeremy Krebs, Anthony Dowell and 2 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

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

12 authors.

Virginia SignalDepartment of Public Health, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-5529-7444
Melissa McLeodDepartment of Public Health, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-5834-7846
James StanleyBiostatistical Group, Dean's Department, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-8572-1047
Jeannine StairmandDepartment of Public Health, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-1754-902X
Nitin SukumaranSchool of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-5743-0405
Donna-Marie ThompsonDepartment of Public Health, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-7230-7851
Kelly HendersonDepartment of Public Health, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-8947-8008
Cheryl DaviesKokiri Marae, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-5370-3485
Jeremy KrebsDepartment of Medicine, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-7850-3447
Anthony DowellDepartment of Primary Health Care and General Practice, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-0131-117X
Rebecca GraingerDepartment of Medicine, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-9201-8678
Diana SarfatiDepartment of Public Health, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-2425-4086

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTechnology-assisted self-management programs are increasingly recommended to patients with long-term conditions such as diabetes. However, there are a number of personal and external factors that affect patients' abilities to engage with and effectively utilize such programs. A randomized controlled trial of a multi-modal online program for diabetes self-management (BetaMe/Melon) was conducted in a primary care setting, and a process evaluation was completed at the end of the study period.

objectiveThis process evaluation aimed to examine the utilization patterns of BetaMe/Melon, identify which components participants found most (and least) useful, and identify areas of future improvement.

methodsProcess evaluation data were collected for intervention arm participants from 3 sources: (1) the mobile/web platform (to identify key usage patterns over the 16-week core program), (2) an online questionnaire completed during the final study assessment, and (3) interviews conducted with a subset of participants following the study period. Participants were classified as "actively engaged" if any usage data was recorded for the participant (in any week), and patterns were reported by age, gender, ethnicity, and diabetes/prediabetes status. The online questionnaire asked participants about the usefulness of the program and whether they would recommend BetaMe/Melon to others according to a 5-point Likert Scale. Of 23 invited participants, 18 participated in a digitally recorded, semistructured telephone interview. Interview data were thematically analyzed.

resultsOut of the 215 participants, 198 (92%) received an initial health coaching session, and 160 (74%) were actively engaged with the program at some point during the 16-week core program. Engagement varied by demographic, with women, younger participants, and ethnic majority populations having higher rates of engagement. Usage steadily declined from 50% at Week 0 to 23% at Week 15. Participants ranked component usefulness as education resources (63.7%), health coaches (59.2%), goal tracking (48.8%), and online peer support (42.1%). Although 53% agreed that the program was easy to use, 64% would recommend the program to others. Interview participants found BetaMe/Melon useful overall, with most identifying beneficial outcomes such as increased knowledge, behavioral changes, and weight loss. Barriers to engagement were program functionality, internet connectivity, incomplete delivery of all program components, and participant motivation. Participants suggested a range of improvements to the BetaMe/Melon program.

conclusionsThe program was generally well received by participants; active engagement was initially high, although it declined steadily. Maintaining participant engagement over time, individualizing programs, and addressing technical barriers are important to maximize potential health benefits from online diabetes self-management programs.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12617000549325; https://tinyurl.com/y622b27q.

Indexed as

AdultAgedDiabetes MellitusFemaleHealth BehaviorHumansInternet-Based InterventionMaleMiddle AgedPrediabetic StateSelf-Managementappdiabetesdiabetes mellitusdigital healtheHealthevaluationmobile appsprediabetesself-managementuseruser perceptionutilization

Identifiers

PMID33258776
PMCPMC7738254

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.