ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Evaluating Co-Designed vs Researcher-Driven Personalized Feedback Formats in a Brief Digital Alcohol Use Intervention: Mixed Methods Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreasingly, brief digital interventions are being implemented to combat alcohol misuse. While the utility of incorporating personalized feedback into these interventions has been explored, less work has concentrated on how consumer-driven research might be harnessed to better tailor personalized feedback. Critically, the relative efficacy of co-designed interventions vs those designed by research teams without stakeholder input has not typically been explored.
objectiveThis study aimed to use an exploratory sequential mixed methods approach to elicit user-designed personalized feedback to incorporate into an existing brief digital intervention developed to combat hazardous drinking; investigate differences in capacity, opportunity, and motivation (as per the Capacity, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior model) to alter alcohol use behavior; examine whether participants prefer the co-designed product over those designed by research teams; and evaluate change in actual consumption over time as a function of co-designed (image-based) vs researcher-designed (image- or text-based) personalized feedback.
methodsPart 1 used an online co-design process involving a convenience sample of young adult focus group participants (N=40; mean age 21.87, SD 7.51 years). Part 2 surveyed a convenience sample of young adults who drank alcohol regularly (N=222; mean age 21.14, SD 4.69 years). Participants were assigned to 1 of 3 personalized feedback conditions (researcher designed, text-based; researcher-designed, image-based; and co-designed, image-based) using block allocation with stratification based on alcohol intake and impulsivity level. Feedback was delivered via email, and impact on capacity, opportunity, and motivation to alter alcohol use behavior, plus preferred format of feedback, was examined (10.76, SD 14.05 days) via mixed and 1-way ANOVAs and post hoc tests. Change in alcohol consumption (89.70, SD 21.59 days) was investigated via a series of repeated-measures ANOVA and post hoc tests.
resultsIn Part 1, qualitative thematic analysis of focus group data identified 6 overarching themes: visual representation, clarity, accessibility, brevity, peer comparison, and harm. Following this analysis, personalized feedback regarding alcohol intake and brain health was available in 3 formats: researcher designed, text-based; researcher-designed, image-based; and co-designed, image-based. In Part 2, there were no differences in capacity, opportunity, and motivation to alter alcohol use behavior as a function of feedback format (η
conclusionsThough the principles of co-design are undeniably valuable, the efficacy of co-designed interventions, over and above those designed by research teams without user input, requires further research.
trial registrationOSF Registries osf.io/rnbv8; https://osf.io/y4bhs.
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.