Mary E Mihuta1, Heather J Green2. 1. Menzies Health Institute Queensland and School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, 4222, Australia. mary.mihuta@griffithuni.edu.au. 2. Menzies Health Institute Queensland and School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, 4222, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Low engagement and high attrition are common challenges in web-based interventions. Typical measures of engagement reported in the literature are not meaningful for describing participant activity within the intervention and can be misleading. This research aimed to develop a more meaningful method of measuring engagement in an online cognitive rehabilitation program whilst monitoring treatment fidelity. METHODS: A pilot study and randomised controlled trial (RCT) were conducted. Data from 60 participants were analysed from three intervention groups: pilot cancer group, pilot non-cancer group and RCT cancer group. Groups completed the 4-week eReCog program comprised of four online modules. Engagement scores were calculated based on activities completed in each module. Attrition, interaction with the program facilitator and correlations with outcome measures were analysed. RESULTS:Overall engagement in the intervention was high. The non-cancer group participated significantly less than the cancer groups (p = < 0.001), whereby the percentage of activity items completed was 92, 87 and 78% in the pilot cancer, RCT cancer and pilot non-cancer groups, respectively. Attrition was higher in the pilot non-cancer group (24%) compared to the pilot cancer group (8%) and the RCT cancer group (16%). Total engagement was correlated with fewer prospective memory problems on instrumental activities of daily living (p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Measuring completed activities in online interventions appears a more meaningful measure of engagement than other conventional methods described in the literature and has the potential to increase treatment fidelity in web-based research.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Low engagement and high attrition are common challenges in web-based interventions. Typical measures of engagement reported in the literature are not meaningful for describing participant activity within the intervention and can be misleading. This research aimed to develop a more meaningful method of measuring engagement in an online cognitive rehabilitation program whilst monitoring treatment fidelity. METHODS: A pilot study and randomised controlled trial (RCT) were conducted. Data from 60 participants were analysed from three intervention groups: pilot cancer group, pilot non-cancer group and RCT cancer group. Groups completed the 4-week eReCog program comprised of four online modules. Engagement scores were calculated based on activities completed in each module. Attrition, interaction with the program facilitator and correlations with outcome measures were analysed. RESULTS: Overall engagement in the intervention was high. The non-cancer group participated significantly less than the cancer groups (p = < 0.001), whereby the percentage of activity items completed was 92, 87 and 78% in the pilot cancer, RCT cancer and pilot non-cancer groups, respectively. Attrition was higher in the pilot non-cancer group (24%) compared to the pilot cancer group (8%) and the RCT cancer group (16%). Total engagement was correlated with fewer prospective memory problems on instrumental activities of daily living (p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Measuring completed activities in online interventions appears a more meaningful measure of engagement than other conventional methods described in the literature and has the potential to increase treatment fidelity in web-based research.
Authors: Catherine C Classen; Meredith L Chivers; Sara Urowitz; Lisa Barbera; David Wiljer; Susan O'Rinn; Sarah E Ferguson Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Linda H Eaton; Ardith Z Doorenbos; Krisann L Schmitz; Kelly M Carpenter; Bonnie A McGregor Journal: Nurs Res Date: 2011 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.381
Authors: David Wiljer; Sara Urowitz; Lisa Barbera; Meredith L Chivers; Naa Kwarley Quartey; Sarah E Ferguson; Matthew To; Catherine C Classen Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Victoria J Bray; Haryana M Dhillon; Melanie L Bell; Michael Kabourakis; Mallorie H Fiero; Desmond Yip; Frances Boyle; Melanie A Price; Janette L Vardy Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Wendy Brouwer; Willemieke Kroeze; Rik Crutzen; Jascha de Nooijer; Nanne K de Vries; Johannes Brug; Anke Oenema Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2011-01-06 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Claire Foster; Chloe Grimmett; Christine M May; Sean Ewings; Michelle Myall; Claire Hulme; Peter W Smith; Cassandra Powers; Lynn Calman; Jo Armes; Matthew Breckons; Jessica Corner; Deborah Fenlon; Lynn Batehup; Elaine Lennan; Carl R May; Carolyn Morris; Amanda Neylon; Emma Ream; Lesley Turner; Lucy Yardley; Alison Richardson Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kete M Klaver; Saskia F A Duijts; Chantal A V Geusgens; Maureen J B Aarts; Rudolf W H M Ponds; Allard J van der Beek; Sanne B Schagen Journal: Trials Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 2.279