Paul Krebs1, James O Prochaska, Joseph S Rossi. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA. krebsp@mskcc.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Computer-tailored interventions have become increasingly common for facilitating improvement in behaviors related to chronic disease and health promotion. A sufficient number of outcome studies from these interventions are now available to facilitate the quantitative analysis of effect sizes, permitting moderator analyses that were not possible with previous systematic reviews. METHOD: The present study employs meta-analytic techniques to assess the mean effect for 88 computer-tailored interventions published between 1988 and 2009 focusing on four health behaviors: smoking cessation, physical activity, eating a healthy diet, and receiving regular mammography screening. Effect sizes were calculated using Hedges g. Study, tailoring, and demographic moderators were examined by analyzing between-group variance and meta-regression. RESULTS: Clinically and statistically significant overall effect sizes were found across each of the four behaviors. While effect sizes decreased after intervention completion, dynamically tailored interventions were found to have increased efficacy over time as compared with tailored interventions based on one assessment only. Study effects did not differ across communication channels nor decline when up to three behaviors were identified for intervention simultaneously. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that computer-tailored interventions have the potential to improve health behaviors and suggests strategies that may lead to greater effectiveness of these techniques.
OBJECTIVE: Computer-tailored interventions have become increasingly common for facilitating improvement in behaviors related to chronic disease and health promotion. A sufficient number of outcome studies from these interventions are now available to facilitate the quantitative analysis of effect sizes, permitting moderator analyses that were not possible with previous systematic reviews. METHOD: The present study employs meta-analytic techniques to assess the mean effect for 88 computer-tailored interventions published between 1988 and 2009 focusing on four health behaviors: smoking cessation, physical activity, eating a healthy diet, and receiving regular mammography screening. Effect sizes were calculated using Hedges g. Study, tailoring, and demographic moderators were examined by analyzing between-group variance and meta-regression. RESULTS: Clinically and statistically significant overall effect sizes were found across each of the four behaviors. While effect sizes decreased after intervention completion, dynamically tailored interventions were found to have increased efficacy over time as compared with tailored interventions based on one assessment only. Study effects did not differ across communication channels nor decline when up to three behaviors were identified for intervention simultaneously. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that computer-tailored interventions have the potential to improve health behaviors and suggests strategies that may lead to greater effectiveness of these techniques.
Authors: James O Prochaska; Wayne F Velicer; Joseph S Rossi; Colleen A Redding; Geoffrey W Greene; Susan R Rossi; Xiaowu Sun; Joseph L Fava; Robert Laforge; Brett A Plummer Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Marilyn Frenn; Shelly Malin; Roger L Brown; Yvonne Greer; Jaime Fox; Jennifer Greer; Sarah Smyczek Journal: Appl Nurs Res Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 2.257
Authors: Bernardine M Pinto; Robert Friedman; Bess H Marcus; Heather Kelley; Sharon Tennstedt; Matthew W Gillman Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Sara S Johnson; Andrea L Paiva; Carol O Cummins; Janet L Johnson; Sharon J Dyment; Julie A Wright; James O Prochaska; Janice M Prochaska; Karen Sherman Journal: Prev Med Date: 2007-10-23 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: J B McClure; H Derry; K R Riggs; E W Westbrook; J St John; S M Shortreed; A Bogart; L C An Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-07-04 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Judith S Gordon; Julie Armin; Melanie D Hingle; Peter Giacobbi; James K Cunningham; Thienne Johnson; Kristopher Abbate; Carol L Howe; Denise J Roe Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Emily Y Zeng; Roger Vilardaga; Jaimee L Heffner; Kristin E Mull; Jonathan B Bricker Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Cynthia M Khan; Christine Rini; Barbara A Bernhardt; J Scott Roberts; Kurt D Christensen; James P Evans; Kyle B Brothers; Myra I Roche; Jonathan S Berg; Gail E Henderson Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2014-12-09 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Wayne F Velicer; Colleen A Redding; Andrea L Paiva; Leanne M Mauriello; Bryan Blissmer; Karin Oatley; Kathryn S Meier; Steven F Babbin; Heather McGee; James O Prochaska; Caitlin Burditt; Anne C Fernandez Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Shannon M Christy; Susan M Perkins; Yan Tong; Connie Krier; Victoria L Champion; Celette Sugg Skinner; Jeffrey K Springston; Thomas F Imperiale; Susan M Rawl Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 5.043