RESUMEN
Self-report measures of health behaviour have several limitations including measurement reactivity, i.e., changes in people's behaviour, cognitions or emotions due to taking part in research. This systematic review investigates whether digital in-the-moment measures induce reactivity to a similar extent and why it occurs. Four databases were searched in December 2020. All observational or experimental studies investigating reactivity to digital in-the-moment measurement of a range of health behaviours were included if they were published in English in 2008 or later. Of the 11,723 records initially screened, 30 publications reporting on 31 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis/ 7 studies in the quantitative synthesis. Eighty-one percent of studies focused on reactivity to the measurement of physical activity indicators; small but meaningful pooled effects were found (Cohen's ds: 0.27-0.30). Only a small number of studies included other behaviours, yielding mixed results. Digital in-the-moment measurement of behaviour thus may be as prone to reactivity as self-reports in questionnaires. Measurement reactivity may be amplified by (1) ease of changing the behaviour (2) awareness of being measured and social desirability, and (3) resolving discrepancies between actual and desired behaviour through self-regulation.
Asunto(s)
Ejercicio Físico , Conductas Relacionadas con la Salud , Humanos , Investigación Cualitativa , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' and healthcare practitioners' (HCPs) views about non-adherence to hypertension medication and potential content of a combined very brief face-to-face discussion (VBI) and digital intervention (DI). METHODS: A qualitative study (N=31): interviews with patients with hypertension (n=6) and HCPs (n=11) and four focus groups with patients with hypertension (n=14). Participants were recruited through general practices in Eastern England and London. Topic guides explored reasons for medication non-adherence and attitudes towards a potential intervention to support adherence. Stimuli to facilitate discussion included example SMS messages and smartphone app features, including mobile sensing. Analysis was informed methodologically by the constant comparative approach and theoretically by perceptions and practicalities approach. RESULTS: Participants' overarching explanations for non-adherence were non-intentional (forgetting) and intentional (concerns about side effects, reluctance to medicate). These underpinned their views on intervention components: messages that targeted forgetting medication or obtaining prescriptions were considered more useful than messages providing information on consequences of non-adherence. Tailoring the DI to the individuals' needs, regarding timing and number of messages, was considered important for user engagement. Patients wanted control over the DI and information about data use associated with any location sensing. While the DI was considered limited in its potential to address intentional non-adherence, HCPs saw the potential for a VBI in addressing this gap, if conducted in a non-judgemental manner. Incorporating a VBI into routine primary care was considered feasible, provided it complemented existing GP practice software and HCPs received sufficient training. CONCLUSIONS: A combined VBI-DI can potentially address intentional and non-intentional reasons for non-adherence to hypertension medication. For optimal engagement, recommendations from this work include a VBI conducted in a non-judgmental manner and focusing on non-intentional factors, followed by a DI that is easy-to-use, highly tailored and with provision of data privacy details about any sensing technology used.
Asunto(s)
Hipertensión , Aplicaciones Móviles , Humanos , Hipertensión/tratamiento farmacológico , Cumplimiento de la Medicación , Atención Primaria de Salud , Investigación CualitativaRESUMEN
Smartphones have become popular in assessing eating behaviour in real-life and real-time. This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of smartphone-based dietary assessment tools, focusing on how dietary data is assessed and its completeness ensured. Seven databases from behavioural, social and computer science were searched in March 2020. All observational, experimental or intervention studies and study protocols using a smartphone-based assessment tool for dietary intake were included if they reported data collected by adults and were published in English. Out of 21,722 records initially screened, 117 publications using 129 tools were included. Five core assessment features were identified: photo-based assessment (48.8% of tools), assessed serving/ portion sizes (48.8%), free-text descriptions of food intake (42.6%), food databases (30.2%), and classification systems (27.9%). On average, a tool used two features. The majority of studies did not implement any features to improve completeness of the records. This review provides a comprehensive overview and framework of smartphone-based dietary assessment tools to help researchers identify suitable assessment tools for their studies. Future research needs to address the potential impact of specific dietary assessment methods on data quality and participants' willingness to record their behaviour to ultimately improve the quality of smartphone-based dietary assessment for health research.
Asunto(s)
Dieta , Teléfono Inteligente , Adulto , Humanos , Ingestión de AlimentosRESUMEN
The PAM intervention is a behavioural intervention to support adherence to anti-hypertensive medications and therefore to lower blood pressure. This feasibility trial recruited 101 nonadherent patients (54% male, mean age 65.8 years) with hypertension and high blood pressure from nine general practices in the UK. The trial had 15.5% uptake and 7.9% attrition rate. Patients were randomly allocated to two groups: the intervention group (n = 61) received the PAM intervention as an adjunct to usual care; the control group (n = 40) received usual care only. At 3 months, biochemically validated medication adherence was improved by 20% (95% CI 3-36%) in the intervention than control, and systolic blood pressure was reduced by 9.16 mmHg (95% CI 5.69-12.64) in intervention than control. Improvements in medication adherence and reductions in blood pressure suggested potential intervention effectiveness. For a subsample of patients, improvements in medication adherence and reductions in full lipid profile (cholesterol 1.39 mmol/mol 95% CI 0.64-1.40) and in glycated haemoglobin (3.08 mmol/mol, 95% CI 0.42-5.73) favoured the intervention. A larger trial will obtain rigorous evidence about the potential clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention.Trial registration Trial date of first registration 28/01/2019. ISRCTN74504989. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN74504989 .
Asunto(s)
Hipertensión , Cumplimiento de la Medicación , Atención Primaria de Salud , Anciano , Femenino , Hemoglobina Glucada/metabolismo , Humanos , Hipertensión/sangre , Hipertensión/tratamiento farmacológico , Hipertensión/fisiopatología , Hipertensión/psicología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Reino UnidoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The majority of people do not achieve recommended levels of physical activity. There is a need for effective, scalable interventions to promote activity. Self-monitoring by pedometer is a potentially suitable strategy. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief (5-minute) pedometer-based intervention ('Step It Up') delivered as part of National Health Service (NHS) Health Checks in primary care. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The Very Brief Intervention (VBI) Trial was a two parallel-group, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 3-month follow-up, conducted in 23 primary care practices in the East of England. Participants were 1,007 healthy adults aged 40 to 74 years eligible for an NHS Health Check. They were randomly allocated (1:1) using a web-based tool between October 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, to either intervention (505) or control group (502), stratified by primary care practice. Participants were aware of study group allocation. Control participants received the NHS Health Check only. Intervention participants additionally received Step It Up: a 5-minute face-to-face discussion, written materials, pedometer, and step chart. The primary outcome was accelerometer-based physical activity volume at 3-month follow-up adjusted for sex, 5-year age group, and general practice. Secondary outcomes included time spent in different intensities of physical activity, self-reported physical activity, and economic measures. We conducted an in-depth fidelity assessment on a subsample of Health Check consultations. Participants' mean age was 56 years, two-thirds were female, they were predominantly white, and two-thirds were in paid employment. The primary outcome was available in 859 (85.3%) participants. There was no significant between-group difference in activity volume at 3 months (adjusted intervention effect 8.8 counts per minute [cpm]; 95% CI -18.7 to 36.3; p = 0.53). We found no significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes of step counts per day, time spent in moderate or vigorous activity, time spent in vigorous activity, and time spent in moderate-intensity activity (accelerometer-derived variables); as well as in total physical activity, home-based activity, work-based activity, leisure-based activity, commuting physical activity, and screen or TV time (self-reported physical activity variables). Of the 505 intervention participants, 491 (97%) received the Step it Up intervention. Analysis of 37 intervention consultations showed that 60% of Step it Up components were delivered faithfully. The intervention cost £18.04 per participant. Incremental cost to the NHS per 1,000-step increase per day was £96 and to society was £239. Adverse events were reported by 5 intervention participants (of which 2 were serious) and 5 control participants (of which 2 were serious). The study's limitations include a participation rate of 16% and low return of audiotapes by practices for fidelity assessment. CONCLUSIONS: In this large well-conducted trial, we found no evidence of effect of a plausible very brief pedometer intervention embedded in NHS Health Checks on objectively measured activity at 3-month follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN72691150).