| Literature DB >> 24394676 |
Rienke Bannink1, Suzanne Broeren, Evelien Joosten-van Zwanenburg, Els van As, Petra van de Looij-Jansen, Hein Raat.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health promotion for adolescents is important in the prevention of mental health problems and health-risk behaviors. We implemented two interventions in a preventive youth health care setting. Adolescents in the E-health4Uth group received Web-based, tailored messages on their health behavior and well-being. Adolescents in the E-health4Uth and counseling group received the same tailored messages, but were subsequently referred to a school nurse for a consultation if they were at risk of mental health problems.Entities:
Keywords: Internet; Web-based tailoring; adolescents; counseling; eHealth; health care evaluation; health promotion; youth health care
Year: 2014 PMID: 24394676 PMCID: PMC3906651 DOI: 10.2196/resprot.2855
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Res Protoc ISSN: 1929-0748
Figure 1Flow chart of the adolescent's participation.
Figure 2Screenshot of the computer-tailored messages. This is an example of a message (most left tab) that is presented to adolescents who have answered that they have had unsafe sex. The message is therefore displayed in red, indicating unhealthy behavior. By providing links to relevant websites, adolescents are encouraged to search for more information on the topic. The messages on the other topics are presented when clicking on the other (colored) tabs.
General characteristics of the study population, and by intervention group (N=1087).
|
| Total | E-health4Uth | E-health4Uth and counseling |
|
| Age in years, mean (SD) | 15.9 (0.72) | 15.9 (0.73) | 16.0 (0.70) | .02a |
| Boys, n (%) | 621 (57.13) | 294 (55.16) | 327 (59.03) | .20b |
| Ethnicity, Dutch, n (%) | 787 (72.40) | 395 (74.11) | 392 (70.76) | .22b |
| Educational level, vocational training, n (%) | 571 (52.53) | 265 (49.72) | 306 (55.23) | .07b |
aIndependent samples t tests
bχ2 tests
Adolescents’ use and appreciation of the tailored messages and the E-health4Uth program for the study.
|
| Total sample | Educational level | |||||
|
| Vocational | Preuniversity |
| ||||
|
| n (%) | Mean (SD) | n (%) or mean (SD) | n (%) or mean (SD) | |||
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
| Read during school session | 845/1034 (81.72) |
| 407/533 (76.36) | 438/501 (87.43) | <.001a | |
|
| Viewed websites to which reference was made (when read messages) | 38/841 (4.52) |
| 31/403 (7.69) | 7/438 (1.60) | <.001a | |
|
| Viewed Facebook page of E-health4Uthb | 29/814 (3.56) |
| 18/415 (4.34) | 11/399 (2.76) | .22 | |
|
| Discussed with parentsb | 105/572 (18.36) |
| 57/270 (21.11) | 48/302 (15.89) | .11 | |
|
| Discussed with peersb | 137/572 (23.95) |
| 59/270 (21.85) | 78/302 (25.83) | .27 | |
|
| Could adhere to adviceb,c | 235/572 (41.08)e | 3.24 (1.14) | 3.47 (1.13) | 3.04 (1.11) | <.001a | |
|
| Changed own behavior in a positive wayb,c | 123/572 (21.50)e | 2.69 (1.19) | 2.89 (1.23) | 2.52 (1.12) | <.001a | |
|
| |||||||
|
| Credible | 510/843 (60.50)e | 3.59 (0.96) | 3.60 (0.98) | 3.58 (0.94) | .70 | |
|
| Easy to understand | 703/843 (83.39)e | 4.02 (0.83) | 3.93 (0.92) | 4.10 (0.74) | .003a | |
|
| Personally relevant | 356/843 (42.23)e | 3.21 (1.06) | 3.27 (1.03) | 3.17 (1.08) | .17 | |
|
| Gave insight into own behavior | 234/843 (28.83)e | 2.83 (1.11) | 3.00 (1.12) | 2.67 (1.08) | <.001a | |
|
| Contained new information | 162/843 (19.22)e | 2.44 (1.14) | 2.71 (1.18) | 2.20 (1.05) | <.001a | |
|
| Attractive to read | 243/843 (28.83)e | 2.89 (1.05) | 2.94 (1.09) | 2.85 (1.01) | .26 | |
|
| Learned a lot | 212/843 (25.15)e | 2.80 (1.07) | 2.95 (1.11) | 2.66 (1.01) | <.001a | |
|
| Appreciated getting information in this manner | 332/843 (39.38)e | 3.15 (1.02) | 3.19 (1.05) | 3.12 (0.99) | .36 | |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
| Overall satisfactiond |
| 6.70 (1.60) | 6.77 (1.81) | 6.64 (1.39) | .26 | |
|
| Easy to usec | 557/843 (66.07)e | 3.68 (0.93) | 3.60 (0.95) | 3.76 (0.91) | .01a | |
|
| Interestingc | 261/843 (30.96)e | 2.96 (1.06) | 3.03 (1.09) | 2.89 (1.03) | .06 | |
aIndicate significant P values.
bMeasured at follow-up.
cScores on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).
dScores on a 10-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (most-negative evaluation) to 10 (most-positive evaluation).
ePercentages of adolescents who scored a 4 agree or 5 totally agree on the 5-point Likert scale.
Adolescents’ use and appreciation of the tailored messages and the E-health4Uth program by gender and ethnicity.
|
|
| Gender | Ethnicity | ||||
|
| Boys | Girls |
| Dutch | Non-Dutch |
| |
|
|
| n (%) or mean (SD) | n (%) or mean (SD) |
| n (%) or mean (SD) | n (%) or mean (SD) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Read during school session | 473/590 (80.17) | 372/444 (83.78) | .14 | 624/755 (82.65) | 221/279 (79.21) | .20 |
|
| Viewed websites to which reference was | 25/467 (5.35) | 13/374 (3.48) | .19 | 23/621 (3.70) | 15/220 (6.82) | .06 |
|
| Viewed Facebook page of E-health4Utha | 16/458 (3.49) | 13/356 (3.65) | .90 | 22/625 (3.52) | 7/189 (3.70) | .90 |
|
| Discussed with parentsa | 45/290 (15.52) | 60/282 (21.28) | .08 | 83/449 (18.49) | 22/123 (17.89) | .88 |
|
| Discussed with peersa | 59/290 (20.34) | 78/282 (27.66) | .04d | 117/449 (26.06) | 20/123 (16.26) | .02d |
|
| Could adhere to advicea,b | 3.21 (1.19) | 3.28 (1.09) | .46 | 3.17 (1.12) | 3.50 (1.16) | .005d |
|
| Changed own behavior in a positive | 2.69 (1.22) | 2.70 (1.15) | .98 | 2.71 (1.16) | 2.65 (1.28) | .65 |
|
| |||||||
|
| Credible | 3.53 (1.00) | 3.67 (0.89) | .03d | 3.57 (0.92) | 3.65 (1.05) | .30 |
|
| Easy to understand | 3.94 (0.91) | 4.11 (0.71) | .002d | 4.01 (0.80) | 4.02 (0.93) | .91 |
|
| Personally relevant | 3.21 (1.08) | 3.22 (1.03) | .96 | 3.19 (1.03) | 3.28 (1.23) | .27 |
|
| Gave insight into own behavior | 2.79 (1.15) | 2.88 (1.06) | .21 | 2.78 (1.09) | 2.98 (1.16) | .02d |
|
| Contained new information | 2.41 (1.16) | 2.48 (1.11) | .42 | 2.37 (1.11) | 2.64 (1.21) | .002d |
|
| Attractive to read | 2.84 (1.08) | 2.96 (1.02) | .10 | 2.87 (1.02) | 2.96 (1.14) | .25 |
|
| Learned a lot | 2.76 (1.12) | 2.85 (1.00) | .22 | 2.73 (1.02) | 3.00 (1.18) | .002d |
|
| Appreciated getting information in this | 3.12 (1.05) | 3.20 (0.98) | .27 | 3.13 (1.01) | 3.20 (1.05) | .42 |
|
|
| ||||||
|
| Overall satisfactionc | 6.57 (1.75) | 6.87 (1.39) | .005d | 6.72 (1.54) | 6.65 (1.78) | .56 |
|
| Easy to useb | 3.60 (0.98) | 3.79 (0.86) | .004d | 3.72 (0.90) | 3.58 (1.02) | .08 |
|
| Interestingb | 2.87 (1.07) | 3.07 (1.04) | .006d | 2.90 (1.04) | 3.13 (1.11) | .004d |
|
| |||||||
aMeasured at follow-up.
bScores on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).
cScores on a 10-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (most-negative evaluation) to 10 (most-positive evaluation).
dIndicate significant P values.
Description of adolescents’ use and appreciation of the consultation for the study sample and by educational level.
|
|
| Total sample | Educational level | |||
|
|
|
| Vocational | Preuniversity |
| |
|
|
| n (%) | Mean (SD) | n (%), or mean (SD) | n (%), or mean (SD) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| Referred to a nurse | 103/553 (18.62) |
| 69/305 (22.62) | 34/248 (13.71) | .007f |
|
| Total SDQ score>16 | 67/553 (12.11) |
| 45/305 (14.75) | 22/248 (8.87) | .035f |
|
| SDQ subscale emotional problems>5 | 40/553 (7.23) |
| 24/305 (7.87) | 16/248 (6.45) | .52 |
|
| Suicidal thoughts ‘occasionally’ or more | 22/553 (3.98) |
| 12/305 (3.93) | 10/248 (4.03) | .95 |
|
| Did not want to answer question about | 26/553 (4.70) |
| 19/305 (6.23) | 7/248 (2.82) | .06 |
|
| Suicide attempt last year | 4/553 (0.72) |
| 3/305 (0.98) | 1/248 (0.40) | .42 |
|
| Did not want to answer question about | 20/553 (3.61) |
| 14/305 (4.59) | 6/248 (2.42) | .17 |
|
| Asked for a referral | 44/1702 (2.59)a |
| 27/914 (2.95) | 17/788 (2.16) | .30 |
|
| Attending consultation | 126/144 (87.50) |
| 86/94 (91.49) | 40/50 (80.00) | .047f |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| Overall satisfactionb |
| 8.07 (1.21) | 8.07 (1.00) | 8.08 (1.58) | .42e |
|
| Appreciated to be invitedc | 83/126 (65.9)d | 3.70 (1.10) | 3.81 (1.05) | 3.45 (1.18) | .09e |
|
| Valuable addition to the tailored | 81/126 (64.3)d | 3.85 (1.04) | 3.99 (0.98) | 3.55 (1.11) | .03e,f |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| Referral was legitimatec | 63/89 (70.8)d | 3.53 (1.00) | 3.60 (0.99) | 3.35 (1.02) | .21e |
|
| Self-referral was legitimatec | 21/37 (56.8)d | 3.30 (1.15) | 3.17 (1.19) | 3.50 (1.09) | .45e |
|
| Information of the adolescent was helpfulc | 88/110 (80.0)d | 3.83 (0.86) | 3.75 (0.92) | 3.97 (0.71) | .21e |
aThree of the 44 adolescents who asked for a referral were in the E-health4Uth + counselling group and at risk of mental health problems, and therefore also referred to a nurse.
bScores on a 10-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (most-negative evaluation) to 10 (most-positive evaluation).
cScores on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (most-negative evaluation) to 5 (most-positive evaluation).
dPercentages of adolescents or nurses who scored a 4 agree/legitimate/helpful or 5 totally agree/completely legitimate/very helpful on the 5-point Likert scale.
eMann-Whitney U test.
fIndicate significant P values.
Description of adolescents’ use and appreciation of the consultation by gender and ethnicity.
|
|
| Gender | Ethnicity |
| |||||
|
|
| Boys | Girls |
| Dutch | Non-Dutch |
| ||
|
|
| n (%), or mean SD | n (%), or mean SD |
| n (%), or mean SD | n (%), or mean SD |
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
| Referred to a nurse | 51/326 (15.64) | 52/227 (22.91) | .03d | 69/391 (17.65) | 34/162 (20.99) | .36 | ||
|
| Total SDQ score>16 | 37/326 (11.35) | 30/227 (13.22) | .51 | 45/391 (11.51) | 22/162 (13.58) | .50 | ||
|
| SDQ subscale emotional problems>5 | 11/326 (3.37) | 29/227 (12.78) | <.001d | 34/391 (8.70) | 6/162 (3.70) | .039d | ||
|
| Suicidal thoughts ‘occasionally’ or more | 13/326 (3.99) | 9/227 (3.96) | .99 | 17/391 (4.35) | 5/162 (3.09) | .49 | ||
|
| Did not want to answer question about | 14/326 (4.29) | 12/227 (5.29) | .59 | 11/391 (2.81) | 15/162 (9.26) | .001d | ||
|
| Suicide attempt last year | 2/326 (0.61) | 2/227 (0.88) | .72 | 4/391 (1.00) | 0/162 (0.00) | .20 | ||
|
| Did not want to answer question about | 11/326 (3.37) | 9/227 (3.96) | .71 | 8/391 (2.05) | 12/162 (7.41) | .002d | ||
|
| Asked for a referral | 24/906 (2.65) | 20/796 (2.51) | .86 | 20/1207 (1.66) | 24/495 (4.85) | <.001d | ||
|
| Attending consultation | 62/73 (84.93) | 64/71 (90.14) | .35 | 74/88 (84.09) | 52/56 (92.86) | .12 | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| Overall satisfactiona | 8.20 (0.98) | 7.95 (1.39) | .47c | 8.10 (0.97) | 8.04 (1.50) | .85c | ||
|
| Appreciated to be invitedb | 3.69 (0.97) | 3.70 (1.22) | .55c | 3.59 (1.03) | 3.85 (1.18) | .11c | ||
|
| Valuable addition to the tailored | 3.92 (1.00) | 3.78 (1.08) | .50c | 3.70 (1.14) | 4.06 (0.83) | .13c | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| Referral was legitimateb | 3.53 (0.98) | 3.52 (1.03) | .90c | 3.66 (0.88) | 3.27 (1.17) | .16c | ||
|
| Self-referral was legitimateb | 3.00 (1.20) | 3.61 (1.04) | .13c | 3.07 (1.16) | 3.45 (1.14) | .33c | ||
|
| Information of the adolescent was helpfulb | 3.73 (1.01) | 3.90 (0.72) | .47c | 3.98 (0.62) | 3.59 (1.09) | .06c | ||
aScores on a 10-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (most-negative evaluation) to 10 (most-positive evaluation).
bScores on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (most-negative evaluation) to 5 (most-positive evaluation).
cMann-Whitney U test.
Indicate significant P values.