| Literature DB >> 23914991 |
Francine Schneider1, Daniela N Schulz, Loes H L Pouwels, Hein de Vries, Liesbeth A D M van Osch.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of reactive strategies to disseminate effective Internet-delivered lifestyle interventions restricts their level of reach within the target population. This stresses the need to invest in proactive strategies to offer these interventions to the target population. The present study used a proactive strategy to increase reach of an Internet-delivered multi component computer tailored intervention, by embedding the intervention in an existing online health monitoring system of the Regional Public Health Services in the Netherlands.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23914991 PMCID: PMC3750934 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-721
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Figure 1Flowchart of Adult Health Monitor and CT lifestyle intervention participation.
Characteristics of Adult Health Monitor participants (N = 41.155)
| Age (19–64) (Mean, SD) | 44.78, 12.70 | 43.19, 12.42 | 43.23, 12.77 | 43.94, 12.67 |
| Sex (%) | | | | |
| | 44.7 | 51.1 | 52.6 | 53.8 |
| | 55.3 | 48.9 | 47.4 | 46.2 |
| Education level (%) | | | | |
| | 23.2 | 14.7 | 13.2 | 10.6 |
| | 48.5 | 48.9 | 47.7 | 46.9 |
| | 28.2 | 36.4 | 39.1 | 42.6 |
| Work situation (%) | | | | |
| | 72.8 | 77.1 | 76.5 | 76.3 |
| | 27.2 | 22.9 | 23.5 | 23.7 |
| Marital status (%) | | | | |
| | 76.8 | 77.0 | 75.4 | 76.0 |
| | 24.2 | 23.0 | 24.6 | 24.0 |
| Native country (%) | | | | |
| | 93.3 | 93.5 | 93.8 | 95.0 |
| | 6.7 | 6.5 | 6.2 | 5.0 |
| BMI (kg m−2) (%) | | | | |
| | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.7 |
| | 50.9 | 51.5 | 51.1 | 52.6 |
| | 35.1 | 35.4 | 35.6 | 35.4 |
| | 12.4 | 11.7 | 11.8 | 10.4 |
| Physical activity (%) | | | | |
| | 78.4 | 77.1 | 77.7 | 79.1 |
| | 21.6 | 22.9 | 22.3 | 20.9 |
| Vegetable consumption (%) | | | | |
| | 31.2 | 29.9 | 30.4 | 31.5 |
| | 68.8 | 70.1 | 69.6 | 68.5 |
| Fruit consumption (%) | | | | |
| | 49.7 | 46.1 | 45.8 | 45.9 |
| | 50.3 | 53.9 | 54.2 | 54.1 |
| Smoking behavior (%) | | | | |
| | 74.7 | 77.6 | 78.1 | 81.7 |
| | 25.3 | 22.4 | 21.9 | 18.3 |
| Alcohol intake (%) | | | | |
| | 73.6 | 73.6 | 72.3 | 71.7 |
| | 26.4 | 26.4 | 27.7 | 28.3 |
| Total number of guidelines | | | | |
| | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.7 |
| | 7.2 | 7.5 | 7.3 | 6.5 |
| | 21.3 | 22.1 | 22.4 | 20.9 |
| | 33.6 | 34.1 | 33.9 | 35.5 |
| | 27.1 | 26.2 | 26.3 | 26.6 |
| | 9.9 | 9.1 | 9.2 | 9.7 |
| Personal judgment lifestyle | | | | |
| 5.7 | 5.5 | 5.6 | 6.5 | |
| 61.8 | 61.6 | 60.3 | 61.8 | |
| 28.9 | 28.9 | 29.4 | 27.5 | |
| 3.2 | 3.7 | 4.3 | 3.9 | |
| 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | |
| K10 (Mean, SD) | 15.41, 6.26 | 15.17, 5.90 | 15.47, 6.08 | 15.21, 5.71 |
| SF-12 (Mean, SD) | 39.76, 5.63 | 40.09, 5.29 | 39.88, 5.39 | 40.12, 5.19 |
Predictors of participation in the CT lifestyle intervention (N = 9.169)
| | |||
| Age | 0.000 | 1.01-1.02 | |
| Sex | | | |
| | | | |
| Female | 0.033 | 0.83-0.99 | |
| Education | | | |
| | | | |
| | 0.000 | 1.34-1.77 | |
| | 0.000 | 1.67-2.23 | |
| Work situation | | | |
| | | | |
| | 0.90 | 0.050 | 0.80-1.00 |
| Marital status | | | |
| | | | |
| | 0.93 | 0.210 | 0.83-1.04 |
| Native country | | | |
| | | | |
| | 0.000 | 1.21-1.75 | |
| BMI | | | |
| | | | |
| | 0.023 | 1.06-2.27 | |
| | 0.009 | 0.79-0.97 | |
| | 0.000 | 0.61-0.82 | |
| Total # of guideline (adherence) | 0.009 | 1.01-1.10 | |
| Personal judgment own current lifestyle | 1.06 | 0.139 | 0.98-1.15 |
| K10 | 1.00 | 0.815 | 0.99-1.01 |
| SF-12 | 1.00 | 0.555 | 0.99-1.02 |
Note: Significant OR’s are depicted in bold.