ArticleBMC public health2025
Differences in usage and engagement rates of an online physical activity intervention among subgroups of adults aged 50 years and older in a practical setting.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReach, use and effects of digital health interventions (DHIs) vary greatly among subpopulations, with lower usage rates and effects among groups with low socioeconomic status (SES) and chronic diseases. However, reaching these groups and improving their DHI use is crucial since they could benefit the most from improving their health and lifestyle. The aim of this study was to provide insight into usage and engagement rates of an online physical activity (PA) intervention among adults aged 50 years and older with a focus on differences between educational level (low vs. middle vs. high) and chronic disease (with vs. without) subgroups.
methodsA field study was performed where 400 adults aged 50 years and older received access to the AcTive-Plus intervention consisting of an activity tracker and three online tailored PA advisory sessions, which provide among others feedback on current PA behavior and personal suggestions for increasing PA. The concepts attrition, intervention use, motivation (five-point scale), appropriateness (ten-point scale) and engagement (Twente Engagement with Ehealth Technologies Scale, maximum score of 15) were assessed via software log data and online questionnaires. Chi-squares and Analyses of covariance were performed to test for differences between educational level and chronic disease subgroups with regard to the mentioned concepts (P ≤ .05).
resultsParticipants were categorized into low (≤ intermediate general secondary education) (N = 148), middle (N = 147) and high (≥ higher vocational education) (N = 105) education and into chronic disease (N = 200) and no chronic disease (N = 200) subgroups. Attrition from inclusion to baseline was 35%. Of the baseline-completers, respectively 60%, 42% and 72% completed advisory session 1, 2 and 3. Intervention motivation (advisory sessions mean = 3.6, standard deviation = 0.8; activity tracker M = 3.9, SD = 1.0), fit (M = 6.8, SD = 1.8) and engagement (M = 11.1–11.3, SD = 2.5–2.8) for the total study population were relatively high. No differences were found between subgroups on attrition, intervention use, motivation, appropriateness and engagement. With regard to intervention use, the middle education group (69%) was more likely (χ2 = 9.606, P = .048) to complete advisory session 1 than the low education group (51%).
conclusionsThere are indications that AcTive-Plus is accepted by adults aged 50 years and older with different educational backgrounds and health status when implemented in practice. However, the relatively high enrolment attrition rates and exploratory nature of the study need to be taken into account. The specific attention paid to low education and chronic disease groups during intervention development, optimization and recruitment is considered an important contributor for these exploratory findings. Therefore, DHI researchers and practitioners are recommended to involve these subgroups during intervention development, evaluation and implementation. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.