Do Participants’ Preferences for Mode of Delivery (Text, Video, or Both) Influence the Effectiveness of a Web-Based Physical Activity Intervention?

Abstract

BackgroundIn randomized controlled trials, participants cannot choose their preferred intervention delivery mode and thus might refuse to participate or not engage fully if assigned to a nonpreferred group. This might underestimate the true effectiveness of behavior-change interventions.ObjectiveTo examine whether receiving interventions either matched or mismatched with participants’ preferred delivery mode would influence effectiveness of a Web-based physical activity intervention.MethodsAdults (n = 863), recruited via email, were randomly assigned to one of three intervention delivery modes (text based, video based, or combined) and received fully automated, Internet-delivered personal advice about physical activity. Personalized intervention content, based on the theory of planned behavior and stages of change concept, was identical across groups. Online, self-assessed questionnaires measuring physical activity were completed at baseline, 1 week, and 1 month. Physical activity advice acceptability and website usability were assessed at 1 week. Before randomization, participants were asked which delivery mode they preferred, to categorize them as matched or mismatched. Time spent on the website was measured throughout the intervention. We applied intention-to-treat, repeated-measures analyses of covariance to assess group differences.ResultsAttrition was high (575/863, 66.6%), though equal between groups (t 86 3 =1.31, P =.19). At 1-month follow-up, 93 participants were categorized as matched and 195 as mismatched. They preferred text mode (493/803, 61.4%) over combined (216/803, 26.9%) and video modes (94/803, 11.7%). After the intervention, 20% (26/132) of matched-group participants and 34% (96/282) in the mismatched group changed their delivery mode preference. Time effects were significant for all physical activity outcomes (total physical activity: F 2,801 = 5.07, P = .009; number of activity sessions: F 2,801 = 7.52, P < .001; walking: F 2,801 = 8.32, P < .001; moderate physical activity: F 2,801 = 9.53, P < .001; and vigorous physical activity: F 2,801 = 6.04, P = .002), indicating that physical activity increased over time for both matched and mismatched groups. Matched-group participants improved physical activity outcomes slightly more than those in the mismatched group, but interaction effects were not significant. Physical activity advice acceptability (content scale: t 368 = .10, P = .92; layout scale: t 368 = 1.53, P = .12) and website usability (layout scale: t 426 = .05, P = .96; ease of use scale: t 426 = .21, P = .83) were generally high and did not differ between the matched and mismatched groups. The only significant difference (t 621 = 2.16, P = .03) was in relation to total time spent on the website: the mismatched group spent significantly more time on the website (14.4 minutes) than the matched group (12.1 minutes).ConclusionParticipants’ preference regarding delivery mode may not significantly influence intervention outcomes. Consequently, allowing participants to choose their preferre...

Influence of Delivery Strategy on Message-Processing Mechanisms and Future Adherence to a Dutch Computer-Tailored Smoking Cessation Intervention

“…The idea that the processing of computer-tailored information would depend on the delivery strategy did not hold for this computer-tailored intervention. This conclusion is in line with results found in a recent study concerning physical activity, which demonstrated no differences between video- and text-generated computer-tailored messages [46]. One explanation for these findings may be the exposure time of the intervention.…”

An investigation of the colorectal cancer experience and receptivity to family-based cancer prevention programs

“…For instance, patients and family members in this study suggested a variety of ways in which family-based programs can be delivered given current technology, and yet, many recognized that the feasibility of these methods may differ across families. Previous studies have reported similar preferences for delivering educational intervention programs, including web-based methods, use of text messaging, and video formats [39]; however, challenges akin to those identified in this study were also noted, such as difficulty navigating websites or using available technology [40, 41]. In addition, patients and family members in this study strongly recommended aligning new programs with existing programs within communities; this is consonant with literature showing that health promotion programs which are developed in collaboration with a community-based organization tend to enjoy high participation rates [42, 43].…”

Understanding online reading through the eyes of first and second language readers: An exploratory study

“…Their reading patterns, therefore, are not as coherent as those with less prior knowledge (Salmeron, Kintsch, & Canas, 2006). Other factors identified to affect online reading comprehension include readers cognitive flexibility (Dommes et al, 2011), visual aesthetics (Norman, 2004;Tractinsky et al, 2006), computer experience (Hill et al, 2011), perceptions of website interface and media richness (Chen et al, 2011), preference of reading delivery mode (Vandelanotte et al, 2012), previous online reading experiences (Huang, 2012), contextual factors, and readers' personal characteristics (Adesope et al, 2011).…”