Literature DB >> 25406436

Using mixed methods to develop and evaluate an online weight management intervention.

Katherine Bradbury1, Laura Dennison, Paul Little, Lucy Yardley.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This article illustrates the use of mixed methods in the development and evaluation of the Positive Online Weight Reduction (POWeR) programme, an e-health intervention designed to support sustainable weight loss. The studies outlined also explore how human support might enhance intervention usage and weight loss.
METHODS: Mixed methods were used to develop and evaluate POWeR. In the development phase, we drew on both quantitative and qualitative findings to plan and gain feedback on the intervention. Next, a feasibility trial, with nested qualitative study, explored what level of human support might lead to the most sustainable weight loss. Finally, a large community-based trial of POWeR, with nested qualitative study, explored whether the addition of brief telephone coaching enhances usage.
RESULTS: Findings suggest that POWeR is acceptable and potentially effective. Providing human support enhanced usage in our trials, but was not unproblematic. Interestingly, there were some indications that more basic (brief) human support may produce more sustainable weight loss outcomes than more regular support. Qualitative interviews suggested that more regular support might foster reliance, meaning patients cannot sustain their weight losses when support ends. Qualitative findings in the community trial also suggested explanations for why many people may not take up the opportunity for human support.
CONCLUSIONS: Integrating findings from both our qualitative and quantitative studies provided far richer insights than would have been gained using only a single method of inquiry. Further research should investigate the optimum delivery of human support needed to maximize sustainable weight loss in online interventions. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? There is evidence that human support may increase the effectiveness of e-health interventions. It is unclear what level of human support might be optimal or how human support improves effectiveness. Triangulation of quantitative and qualitative methods can be used to inform the design and implementation of interventions What does this study add? This paper demonstrates the value of a mixed methods approach when developing and evaluating an intervention. Qualitative methods provided complementary insights into the optimal level of human support. Brief human support is valued by some and may enhance usage and outcomes of an e-health intervention for weight loss.
© 2014 The British Psychological Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  e-health; intervention development; mixed methods; obesity; weight management

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25406436     DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12125

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Health Psychol        ISSN: 1359-107X


  12 in total

1.  What families really think about the quality of early intervention centers: a perspective from mixed methods.

Authors:  Rita Pilar Romero-Galisteo; Pablo Gálvez Ruiz; Angel Blanco Villaseñor; Maria Rodríguez-Bailón; Manuel González-Sánchez
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 2.984

2.  Evaluating the feasibility of a web-based weight loss programme for naval service personnel with excess body weight.

Authors:  Gulcan Garip; Kate Morton; Robert Bridger; Lucy Yardley
Journal:  Pilot Feasibility Stud       Date:  2017-02-06

Review 3.  Self-Guided Web-Based Interventions: Scoping Review on User Needs and the Potential of Embodied Conversational Agents to Address Them.

Authors:  Mark R Scholten; Saskia M Kelders; Julia Ewc Van Gemert-Pijnen
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2017-11-16       Impact factor: 5.428

4.  Providing online weight management in Primary Care: a mixed methods process evaluation of healthcare practitioners' experiences of using and supporting patients using POWeR.

Authors:  Emily Smith; Katherine Bradbury; Lisa Scott; Mary Steele; Paul Little; Lucy Yardley
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 7.327

5.  Acceptability and feasibility of weight management programmes for adults with severe obesity: a qualitative systematic review.

Authors:  Zoë C Skea; Magaly Aceves-Martins; Clare Robertson; M De Bruin; Alison Avenell
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-09-11       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  The development and user evaluation of health behaviour change resources for teenage and young adult Cancer survivors.

Authors:  Gemma Pugh; R Hough; H Gravestock; C Davies; R Horder; A Fisher
Journal:  Res Involv Engagem       Date:  2019-02-15

7.  A Visualization Tool to Analyse Usage of Web-Based Interventions: The Example of Positive Online Weight Reduction (POWeR).

Authors:  Emily Julia Arden-Close; Emily Smith; Katherine Bradbury; Leanne Morrison; Laura Dennison; Danius Michaelides; Lucy Yardley
Journal:  JMIR Hum Factors       Date:  2015-05-19

8.  The person-based approach to enhancing the acceptability and feasibility of interventions.

Authors:  Lucy Yardley; Ben Ainsworth; Emily Arden-Close; Ingrid Muller
Journal:  Pilot Feasibility Stud       Date:  2015-10-26

9.  Development of a 5As-based technology-assisted weight management intervention for veterans in primary care.

Authors:  Katrina F Mateo; Natalie B Berner; Natalie L Ricci; Pich Seekaew; Sandeep Sikerwar; Craig Tenner; Joanna Dognin; Scott E Sherman; Adina Kalet; Melanie Jay
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  Protocol for the feasibility and acceptability of a brief routine weight management intervention for postnatal women embedded within the national child immunisation programme: randomised controlled cluster feasibility trial with nested qualitative study (PIMMS-WL).

Authors:  Helen M Parretti; Natalie J Ives; Sarah Tearne; Alexandra Vince; Sheila M Greenfield; Kate Jolly; Susan A Jebb; Emma Frew; Lucy Yardley; Paul Little; Ruth V Pritchett; Amanda Daley
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-02-16       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.