BACKGROUND: Research on technology acceptance and use in e-health weight-loss interventions is limited. Using data from a randomized controlled trial of two e-health interventions, we evaluated the acceptance and use of a self-monitoring Web site for weight loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined eight theoretical constructs about technology acceptance using adapted 5-point Likert scales and the association of measured Web site usage and weight loss. RESULTS: All scales had high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.74-0.97) in both interventions and at 3 and 15 months (end of intensive and maintenance intervention, respectively). From 3 to 15 months mean scores changed unfavorably for two constructs (compatibility and behavioral intention) among coach-led intervention participants, who received ongoing feedback on their self-monitoring entries. Among self-directed intervention participants, who received minimal coach support, mean scores changed unfavorably for five constructs (usefulness, ease of use, concern, compatibility, and behavioral intention). At 3 months, usefulness, ease of use, effect, compatibility, and behavioral intention in the coach-led group (Pearson r=0.33-0.5) and usefulness and affect in the self-directed group (r=0.43-0.46) were significantly correlated with Web site usage, which was correlated with weight loss (β=-0.02, p≤0.001 for both interventions). From 3 to 15 months, mean score changes for usefulness and behavioral intention correlated significantly with Web site usage in the coach-led group. CONCLUSIONS: The adapted acceptance measures showed acceptable psychometric properties and significant associations with actual Web site use, which correlated with weight loss. Better understanding of technology acceptance and use in e-health weight-loss interventions may improve participant adherence and outcome.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Research on technology acceptance and use in e-health weight-loss interventions is limited. Using data from a randomized controlled trial of two e-health interventions, we evaluated the acceptance and use of a self-monitoring Web site for weight loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined eight theoretical constructs about technology acceptance using adapted 5-point Likert scales and the association of measured Web site usage and weight loss. RESULTS: All scales had high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.74-0.97) in both interventions and at 3 and 15 months (end of intensive and maintenance intervention, respectively). From 3 to 15 months mean scores changed unfavorably for two constructs (compatibility and behavioral intention) among coach-led intervention participants, who received ongoing feedback on their self-monitoring entries. Among self-directed intervention participants, who received minimal coach support, mean scores changed unfavorably for five constructs (usefulness, ease of use, concern, compatibility, and behavioral intention). At 3 months, usefulness, ease of use, effect, compatibility, and behavioral intention in the coach-led group (Pearson r=0.33-0.5) and usefulness and affect in the self-directed group (r=0.43-0.46) were significantly correlated with Web site usage, which was correlated with weight loss (β=-0.02, p≤0.001 for both interventions). From 3 to 15 months, mean score changes for usefulness and behavioral intention correlated significantly with Web site usage in the coach-led group. CONCLUSIONS: The adapted acceptance measures showed acceptable psychometric properties and significant associations with actual Web site use, which correlated with weight loss. Better understanding of technology acceptance and use in e-health weight-loss interventions may improve participant adherence and outcome.
Authors: Scott M Grundy; James I Cleeman; Stephen R Daniels; Karen A Donato; Robert H Eckel; Barry A Franklin; David J Gordon; Ronald M Krauss; Peter J Savage; Sidney C Smith; John A Spertus; Fernando Costa Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-09-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: V J Stevens; E Obarzanek; N R Cook; I M Lee; L J Appel; D Smith West; N C Milas; M Mattfeldt-Beman; L Belden; C Bragg; M Millstone; J Raczynski; A Brewer; B Singh; J Cohen Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2001-01-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jun Ma; Veronica Yank; Lan Xiao; Philip W Lavori; Sandra R Wilson; Lisa G Rosas; Randall S Stafford Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: M Kaye Kramer; Andrea M Kriska; Elizabeth M Venditti; Rachel G Miller; Maria M Brooks; Lora E Burke; Linda M Siminerio; Francis X Solano; Trevor J Orchard Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: William C Knowler; Sarah E Fowler; Richard F Hamman; Costas A Christophi; Heather J Hoffman; Anne T Brenneman; Janet O Brown-Friday; Ronald Goldberg; Elizabeth Venditti; David M Nathan Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-10-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Gregory J Norman; Marion F Zabinski; Marc A Adams; Dori E Rosenberg; Amy L Yaroch; Audie A Atienza Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Lisa G Rosas; Nan Lv; Lan Xiao; Megan A Lewis; Patricia Zavella; M Kaye Kramer; Veronica Luna; Jun Ma Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Andy S K Cheng; Xiangyu Liu; Peter H F Ng; Cindy T T Kwok; Yingchun Zeng; Michael Feuerstein Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-07-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Elina Mattila; Susanne Hansen; Lise Bundgaard; Lauren Ramsey; Alice Dunning; Marlene N Silva; Marja Harjumaa; Miikka Ermes; Marta M Marques; Marcela Matos; Sofus C Larsen; Jorge Encantado; Inês Santos; Graham Horgan; Ruairi O'Driscoll; Jake Turicchi; Cristiana Duarte; António L Palmeira; R James Stubbs; Berit Lilienthal Heitmann; Liisa Lähteenmäki Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Brandi Leach; Sarah Parkinson; Evangelos Gkousis; Gary Abel; Helen Atherton; John Campbell; Christopher Clark; Emma Cockcroft; Christine Marriott; Emma Pitchforth; Jon Sussex Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 7.076