Acceptability of Intervention Design Factors in mHealth Intervention Research: Experimental Factorial Study

Abstract

Background With the growing interest in mobile health (mHealth), behavioral medicine researchers are increasingly conducting intervention studies that use mobile technology (eg, to support healthy behavior change). Such studies’ scientific premises are often sound, yet there is a dearth of implementational data on which to base mHealth research methodologies. Notably, mHealth approaches must be designed to be acceptable to research participants to support meaningful engagement, but little empirical data about design factors influencing acceptability in such studies exist. Objective This study aims to evaluate the impact of two common design factors in mHealth intervention research—requiring multiple devices (eg, a study smartphone and wrist sensor) relative to requiring a single device and providing individually tailored feedback as opposed to generic content—on reported participant acceptability. Methods A diverse US adult convenience sample (female: 104/255, 40.8%; White: 208/255, 81.6%; aged 18-74 years) was recruited to complete a web-based experiment. A 2×2 factorial design (number of devices×nature of feedback) was used. A learning module explaining the necessary concepts (eg, behavior change interventions, acceptability, and tailored content) was presented, followed by four vignettes (representing each factorial cell) that were presented to participants in a random order. The vignettes each described a hypothetical mHealth intervention study featuring different combinations of the two design factors (requiring a single device vs multiple devices and providing tailored vs generic content). Participants rated acceptability dimensions (interest, benefit, enjoyment, utility, confidence, difficulty, and overall likelihood of participating) for each study presented. Results Reported interest, benefit, enjoyment, confidence in completing study requirements, and perceived utility were each significantly higher for studies featuring tailored (vs generic) content, and the overall estimate of the likelihood of participation was significantly higher. Ratings of interest, benefit, and perceived utility were significantly higher for studies requiring multiple devices (vs a single device); however, multiple device studies also had significantly lower ratings of confidence in completing study requirements, and participation was seen as more difficult and was associated with a lower estimated likelihood of participation. The two factors did not exhibit any evidence of statistical interactions in any of the outcomes tested. Conclusions The results suggest that potential research participants are sensitive to mHealth design factors. These mHealth intervention design factors may be important for initial perceptions of acceptability (in research or clinical settings). This, in turn, may be associated with participant (eg, self) selection processes, differential compliance with study or treatment processes, or retention over time.

The Use of Telehealth Among People Living With Dementia-Caregiver Dyads During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Review

“…Using the same content and protocols of in-person programs for the web-based programs may affect the quality of services and participants' experiences. For example, using a wearable device to monitor a patient's heart rate and blood pressure during a telehealth visit can enhance the assessment of the participant's health during the visit, thus aiding better patient care [54]. Although the restriction of social activities can easily affect the mood of people living with dementia and caregivers, reviewed studies have paid little attention to participants' emotional health and needs.…”

Persuasive Systems Design Trends in Coronary Heart Disease Management: Scoping Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

“…Designers are tasked to make design decisions based on insights generated from the context of use, user characteristics, and affordances of technology [ 13 ]. These decisions can influence the acceptability and, subsequently, the effectiveness of the system because users are sensitive to design features (eg, tailoring) [ 54 ]. From the results of the analysis, it appears that the involvement of users (eg, to create messages) may serve as a strategy to mitigate designer bias in the development of health interventions.…”

Shedding light on participant selection bias in Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) studies: Findings from an internet panel study

“…A typical momentary study would likely have moderate to high burden, because it involves somewhat intrusive sampling in everyday life over a substantial period. However, the negative impact of burden on selection may be offset by other study features, such as when the purpose of a study is deemed relevant to one's interests or future well-being or when it is of special interest to participants (e.g., investigations of disease processes and treatments in patients [17]).…”