| Literature DB >> 17513282 |
Russell E Glasgow1, Candace C Nelson, Kathleen A Kearney, Robert Reid, Debra P Ritzwoller, Victor J Strecher, Mick P Couper, Beverly Green, Kevin Wildenhaus.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research increasingly supports the conclusion that well-designed programs delivered over the Internet can produce significant weight loss compared to randomized controlled conditions. Much less is known about four important issues addressed in this study: (1) which recruitment methods produce higher eHealth participation rates, (2) which patient characteristics are related to enrollment, (3) which characteristics are related to level of user engagement in the program, and (4) which characteristics are related to continued participation in project assessments.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2007 PMID: 17513282 PMCID: PMC1874718 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.9.2.e11
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Participation rate among those sent personal letters
| Diabetes registry members | 6.6% | 4.8% | 0.7% |
| CAD registry members | – | 4.6% | 2.6% |
| Hyperlipidemia registry members | 10.0% | – | – |
| General population in specific geographic region | 2.4% | – | – |
*number of enrollees / number of personal letters of invitation sent.
Figure 1CONSORT diagram of participant retention
Characteristics of enrollees and decliners
| Characteristic | Enrollees (%) | Decliners (%) | |
| < 60 years | 53.5 | 40.0 | < .001 |
| > 60 years | 46.5 | 60.0 | |
| Male | 46.7 | 58.1 | < .001 |
| Female | 53.3 | 41.9 | |
| Current smoker | 5.7 | 12.2 | < .001 |
| Nonsmoker | 94.3 | 87.8 | |
| < US $3000 | 55.6 | 44.3 | < .001 |
| > US $3000 | 44.4 | 55.7 |
Percent of patients achieving different levels of program engagement, by intervention
| Intervention | Initial Engagement* (%) | Ongoing Engagement† (%) |
| Balance only (n = 572) | 90.9 | 49.0 |
| Balance + Achieve (n = 584) | 62.2 | 25.3 |
| Balance + Nourish (n = 596) | 19.1 | 8.1 |
| Balance + Achieve + Nourish (n = 559) | 13.4 | 5.7 |
*Initial Engagement = Viewed initial electronic guides appropriate to that intervention
† Ongoing Engagement = Initial engagement plus viewed at least initial electronic follow-up newsletters appropriate to intervention (or for Achieve, set at least initial goal)
Results of logistic regression to predict engagement
| Factor | Odds Ratio (CI) | Beta | SE | |
| Nourish (vs non) | 0.02 (0.02-0.03) | −3.78 | 0.18 | < .001 |
| Achieve (vs non) | 0.17 (0.12-0.23) | −1.79 | 0.17 | < .001 |
| Nourish × Achieve (Balance only) | 3.97 (2.49-6.32) | 1.38 | 0.24 | < .001 |
| Baseline BMI | 0.99 (0.97-1.00) | −0.02 | 0.01 | .10 |
| Age | 1.01 (1.00-1.02) | 0.01 | 0.01 | .27 |
| Female | 1.68 (1.27-2.22) | 0.52 | 0.14 | < .001 |
| Ethnicity (see below) | .10 | |||
| Diabetes diagnosis (vs non) | 0.94 (0.73-1.20) | −0.07 | 0.13 | .60 |
| CAD diagnosis (vs non) | 1.16 (0.83-1.60) | 0.14 | 0.17 | .39 |
| Self-efficacy | 0.95 (0.85-1.06) | −0.06 | 0.06 | .32 |
| Motivation | 1.03 (0.97-1.10) | 0.03 | 0.03 | .27 |
| Nourish (vs non) | 0.09 (0.06-0.12) | −2.46 | 0.18 | < .001 |
| Achieve (vs non) | 0.34 (0.27-0.44) | −1.07 | 0.13 | < .001 |
| Nourish × Achieve (Balance only) | 2.04 (1.19-3.48) | 0.71 | 0.27 | .009 |
| Baseline BMI | 0.99 (0.97-1.01) | −0.01 | 0.01 | .44 |
| Age | 1.02 (1.01-1.03) | 0.02 | 0.01 | .001 |
| Female | 1.50 (1.12-2.01) | 0.41 | 0.15 | .006 |
| Ethnicity | .04 | |||
| White (vs non) | 1.18 (0.92-1.51) | 0.16 | 0.13 | .20 |
| Black / African American (vs non) | 0.68 (0.47-0.97) | −0.39 | 0.18 | .03 |
| Hispanic/Latino | 0.88 (0.56-1.38) | −0.13 | 0.23 | .57 |
| Diabetes diagnosis (vs non) | 0.97 (0.76-1.25) | −0.03 | 0.13 | .81 |
| CAD diagnosis (vs non) | 1.01 (0.73-1.40) | 0.01 | 0.17 | .97 |
| Self-efficacy | 0.84 (0.75-0.95) | −0.17 | 0.06 | .003 |
| Motivation | 1.07 (1.00-1.14) | 0.07 | 0.03 | .04 |
Results of the multiple regression to predict retention at 12 months
| Factor | Odds Ratio (CI) | Beta | SE | |
| Nourish (vs non) | 1.11 (0.86-1.37) | 0.08 | 0.12 | .50 |
| Achieve (vs non) | 1.08 (0.83-1.33) | 0.05 | 0.12 | .67 |
| Nourish × Achieve (vs non) | 0.87 (0.59-1.15) | −0.19 | 0.17 | .26 |
| Baseline BMI | 0.99 (0.98-1.01) | −0.01 | 0.01 | .22 |
| Age | 1.01 (1.00-1.02) | 0.01 | 0.004 | < .001 |
| Ethnicity* | 1.00-1.19 | −0.05 to 0.17 | 0.09-0.16 | .32 |
| Gender | 0.94 (0.71-1.08) | −0.13 | 0.11 | .23 |
| Baseline self-efficacy | 0.92 (0.84-0.99) | −0.10 | 0.04 | .03 |
| Baseline motivation | 1.01 (0.96-1.06) | 0.01 | 0.02 | .75 |
| Diabetes diagnosis (vs non) | 0.99 (0.81-1.18) | −0.02 | 0.10 | .82 |
| CAD diagnosis (vs non) | 0.87 (0.66-1.09) | −0.17 | 0.13 | .19 |
*Ethnicity involved three separate contrasts: Hispanic vs Other, African American vs Other, and Non-Hispanic White vs Other.