Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Sep 16:10:20552076241283359.
doi: 10.1177/20552076241283359. eCollection 2024 Jan-Dec.

Use and appreciation of combined computer- and mobile-based physical activity interventions within adults aged 50 years and older: Randomized controlled trial

Eline H G M Collombon  1 , Catherine A W Bolman  1 , Gert-Jan de Bruijn  2 , Denise A Peels  1 , Jessie M C van der Velden  1 , Lilian Lechner  1
Affiliations

Use and appreciation of combined computer- and mobile-based physical activity interventions within adults aged 50 years and older: Randomized controlled trial

Eline H G M Collombon et al. Digit Health. .

Abstract

Objective: To investigate whether six combined computer- and mobile-based physical activity interventions differ regarding use, attrition, usability and appreciation among adults aged 50 years and older.

Methods: The interventions were studied in a randomized controlled trial. Participants were allocated to the computer-based Active Plus or I Move program including a mobile-based activity tracker, or ecological momentary intervention (EMI), or chatbot, or to a waiting list control group. Use and attrition were investigated via log data gathered within the intervention software. Appreciation was assessed via online evaluation questionnaires. ANOVAs and Chi-squares were performed to test for intervention differences on use, attrition and appreciation (p ≤ .05).

Results: A total of 954 participants aged 50 years and older with varying health conditions were included. Attrition differed between interventions (χ 2 = 27.121, p < .001) and was the highest in I Move including chatbot (58.4%) and lowest in I Move including activity tracker (33.0%). Appreciation differed between interventions (p < .001) and was the highest for interventions including activity tracker, followed by interventions including EMI and lowest for interventions including chatbot. Technical issues were primarily faced by EMI- and chatbot-participants. EMI-participants reported mainly that they received no or few text messages. Chatbot-participants reported mainly that the step count application was not working properly.

Conclusions: The integration of mobile-based activity trackers with computer-based interventions has high potential for increasing use and lowering attrition among adults aged 50 years and older. The process evaluation findings can guide future intervention optimization procedures, other eHealth and mHealth developers and practitioners.

Keywords: eHealth; mHealth; older adults; physical activity; process evaluation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Study procedures randomized controlled trial. AP = Active Plus; AT = activity tracker; CB = chatbot; CG = control group; EMI = ecological momentary intervention; IM = I Move; T0 = baseline; T1 = 12 weeks post-baseline; T2 = 23/24 weeks post-baseline.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Schematic overview intervention elements. eHealth = electronic health; EMA = ecological momentary assessment; EMI = ecological momentary intervention; mHealth = mobile health; PA = physical activity.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Flow chart of the study population. ACC = accelerometer; AP = Active Plus; AT = activity tracker; CB = chatbot; CG = waitlist control group; EMI = ecological momentary intervention; IM = I Move; Incl = inclusion; SQUASH = short questionnaire to assess health-enhancing physical activity. aMissing data values for T0 were based on total number of included participants within research group. bMissing data values for T1 and T2 were based on number of participants where T0 SQUASH or ACC data was available within research group.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Vandelanotte C, Müller AM, Short CE, et al. Past, present, and future of eHealth and mHealth research to improve physical activity and dietary behaviors. J Nutr Educ Behav 2016; 48: 219–228. e211. - PubMed
    1. Eysenbach G. The law of attrition. J Med Internet Res 2005; 7: e402. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kelders SM, Kok RN, Ossebaard HC, et al. Persuasive system design does matter: a systematic review of adherence to web-based interventions. J Med Internet Res 2012; 14: e152. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bardus M, Blake H, Lloyd S, et al. Reasons for participating and not participating in a e-health workplace physical activity intervention: a qualitative analysis. Int J Workplace Health Manag 2014; 7: 229–246.
    1. Fisher L, Glasgow RE, Huebschmann A. A scoping review and general user's guide for facilitating the successful use of eHealth programs for diabetes in clinical care. Diabetes Technol Ther 2021; 23: 133–145. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources