Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29720365›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2018

Web-Based Intervention for Women With Type 1 Diabetes in Pregnancy and Early Motherhood: Critical Analysis of Adherence to Technological Elements and Study Design.

Marie Berg, Karolina Linden, Annsofie Adolfsson, Carina Sparud Lundin, Agneta Ranerup

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marie Berg *Centre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC), Institute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-8358-6075
Karolina Linden *Centre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC), Institute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2792-3142
Annsofie AdolfssonSchool of Health Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2577-1632
Carina Sparud LundinCentre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC), Institute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2535-9648
Agneta RanerupDepartment of Applied Information Technology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-5085-9129
University of Gothenburg · SEÖrebro University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNumerous Web-based interventions have been implemented to promote health and health-related behaviors in persons with chronic conditions. Using randomized controlled trials to evaluate such interventions creates a range of challenges, which in turn can influence the study outcome. Applying a critical perspective when evaluating Web-based health interventions is important.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to critically analyze and discuss the challenges of conducting a Web-based health intervention as a randomized controlled trial.

methodThe MODIAB-Web study was critically examined using an exploratory case study methodology and the framework for analysis offered through the Persuasive Systems Design model. Focus was on technology, study design, and Web-based support usage, with special focus on the forum for peer support. Descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis were used.

resultsThe persuasive content and technological elements in the design of the randomized controlled trial included all four categories of the Persuasive Systems Design model, but not all design principles were implemented. The study duration was extended to a period of four and a half years. Of 81 active participants in the intervention group, a maximum of 36 women were simultaneously active. User adherence varied greatly with a median of 91 individual log-ins. The forum for peer support was used by 63 participants. Although only about one-third of the participants interacted in the forum, there was a fairly rich exchange of experiences and advice between them. Thus, adherence in terms of social interactions was negatively affected by limited active participation due to prolonged recruitment process and randomization effects. Lessons learned from this critical analysis are that technology and study design matter and might mutually influence each other. In Web-based interventions, the use of design theories enables utilization of the full potential of technology and promotes adherence. The randomization element in a randomized controlled trial design can become a barrier to achieving a critical mass of user interactions in Web-based interventions, especially when social support is included. For extended study periods, the technology used may need to be adapted in line with newly available technical options to avoid the risk of becoming outdated in the user realm, which in turn might jeopardize study validity in terms of randomized controlled trial designs.

conclusionsOn the basis of lessons learned in this randomized controlled trial, we give recommendations to consider when designing and evaluating Web-based health interventions.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1FemaleHumansInternetPregnancyResearch DesignSocial SupportTelemedicinecase studyeHealthmHealthrandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID29720365
PMCPMC5956162
OpenAlexW2802319915

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.