Understanding usage of a hybrid website and smartphone app for weight management: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Advancements in mobile phone technology offer huge potential for enhancing the timely delivery of health behavior change interventions. The development of smartphone-based health interventions (apps) is a rapidly growing field of research, yet there have been few longitudinal examinations of how people experience and use these apps within their day-to-day routines, particularly within the context of a hybrid Web- and app-based intervention. OBJECTIVE: This study used an in-depth mixed-methods design to examine individual variation in (1) impact on self-reported goal engagement (ie, motivation, self-efficacy, awareness, effort, achievement) of access to a weight management app (POWeR Tracker) when provided alongside a Web-based weight management intervention (POWeR) and (2) usage and views of POWeR Tracker. METHODS: Thirteen adults were provided access to POWeR and were monitored over a 4-week period. Access to POWeR Tracker was provided in 2 alternate weeks (ie, weeks 1 and 3 or weeks 2 and 4). Participants' goal engagement was measured daily via self-report. Mixed effects models were used to examine change in goal engagement between the weeks when POWeR Tracker was and was not available and whether the extent of change in goal engagement varied between individual participants. Usage of POWeR and POWeR Tracker was automatically recorded for each participant. Telephone interviews were conducted and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis to further explore participants' experiences using POWeR and POWeR Tracker. RESULTS: Access to POWeR Tracker was associated with a significant increase in participants' awareness of their eating (ß1=0.31, P=.04) and physical activity goals (ß1=0.28, P=.03). The level of increase varied between individual participants. Usage data showed that participants used the POWeR website for similar amounts of time during the weeks when POWeR Tracker was (mean 29 minutes, SD 31 minutes) and was not available (mean 27 minutes, SD 33 minutes). POWeR Tracker was mostly accessed in short bursts (mean 3 minutes, SD 2 minutes) during convenient moments or moments when participants deemed the intervention content most relevant. The qualitative data indicated that nearly all participants agreed that it was more convenient to access information on-the-go via their mobiles compared to a computer. However, participants varied in their views and usage of the Web- versus app-based components and the informational versus tracking tools provided by POWeR Tracker. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that smartphones have the potential to improve individuals' engagement with their health-related goals when used as a supplement to an existing online intervention. The perceived convenience of mobile access to information does not appear to deter use of Web-based interventions or strengthen the impact of app access on goal engagement. A mixed-methods design enabled exploration of individual variation in daily usage of the app-based tools.

Randomised controlled trial and economic analysis of an internet-based weight management programme: POWeR+ (Positive Online Weight Reduction).

BACKGROUND: Behavioural counselling with intensive follow-up for obesity is effective, but in resource-constrained primary care settings briefer approaches are needed. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an internet-based behavioural intervention with regular face-to-face or remote support in primary care, compared with brief advice. DESIGN: Individually randomised three-arm parallel trial with health economic evaluation and nested qualitative interviews. SETTING: Primary care general practices in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a body mass index of ≥ 30 kg/m2 (or ≥ 28 kg/m2 with risk factors) identified from general practice records, recruited by postal invitation. INTERVENTIONS: Positive Online Weight Reduction (POWeR+) is a 24-session, web-based weight management intervention completed over 6 months. Following online registration, the website randomly allocated participants using computer-generated random numbers to (1) the control intervention (n = 279), which had previously been demonstrated to be clinically effective (brief web-based information that minimised pressure to cut down foods, instead encouraging swaps to healthier choices and increasing fruit and vegetables, plus 6-monthly nurse weighing); (2) POWeR+F (n = 269), POWeR+ supplemented by face-to-face nurse support (up to seven contacts); or (3) POWeR+R (n = 270), POWeR+ supplemented by remote nurse support (up to five e-mails or brief telephone calls). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a modelled estimate of average weight reduction over 12 months, assessed blind to group where possible, using multiple imputation for missing data. The secondary outcome was the number of participants maintaining a 5% weight reduction at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 818 eligible individuals were randomised using computer-generated random numbers. Weight change, averaged over 12 months, was documented in 666 out of 818 participants (81%; control, n = 227; POWeR+F, n = 221; POWeR+R, n = 218). The control group maintained nearly 3 kg of weight loss per person (mean weight per person: baseline, 104.4 kg; 6 months, 101.9 kg; 12 months, 101.7 kg). Compared with the control group, the estimated additional weight reduction with POWeR+F was 1.5 kg [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6 to 2.4 kg; p = 0.001] and with POWeR+R was 1.3 kg (95% CI 0.34 to 2.2 kg; p = 0.007). By 12 months the mean weight loss was not statistically significantly different between groups, but 20.8% of control participants, 29.2% of POWeR+F participants (risk ratio 1.56, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.51; p = 0.070) and 32.4% of POWeR+R participants (risk ratio 1.82, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.74; p = 0.004) maintained a clinically significant 5% weight reduction. The POWeR+R group had fewer individuals who reported doing another activity to help lose weight [control, 47.1% (64/136); POWeR+F, 37.2% (51/137); POWeR+R, 26.7% (40/150)]. The incremental cost to the health service per kilogram weight lost, compared with the control group, was £18 (95% CI -£129 to £195) for POWeR+F and -£25 (95% CI -£268 to £157) for POWeR+R. The probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £100 per kilogram was 88% and 98% for POWeR+F and POWeR+R, respectively. POWeR+R was dominant compared with the control group. No harms were reported and participants using POWeR+ felt more enabled in managing their weight. The qualitative studies documented that POWeR+ was viewed positively by patients and that health-care professionals generally enjoyed supporting patients using POWeR+. STUDY LIMITATIONS: Maintenance of weight loss after 1 year is unknown. FUTURE WORK: Identifying strategies for longer-term engagement, impact in community settings and increasing physical activity. CONCLUSION: Clinically valuable weight loss (> 5%) is maintained in 20% of individuals using novel written materials with brief follow-up. A web-based behavioural programme and brief support results in greater mean weight loss and 10% more participants maintain valuable weight loss; it achieves greater enablement and fewer participants undertaking other weight-loss activities; and it is likely to be cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN21244703. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

GP treatment decisions for patients with depression: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: GPs are prescribing more antidepressants than previously, but not in accordance with guidelines. The reasons why they prescribe are not well understood. AIM: To explore associations between GP treatment and severity of depression, patients' life difficulties, previous history of illness and treatment, and patient attitudes. DESIGN: Observational study in two phases, 3 years apart. SETTING: Seven practices in Southampton, UK. METHOD: Adult attenders who consented were screened for depression in the waiting room. After the consultation, the 17 participating GPs completed questionnaires on the perceived presence and severity of depression, patients' life difficulties, previous problems and treatment, patient attitudes towards antidepressants, and their treatment decisions. Patients returned postal questionnaires on sociodemographics, life events, physical health, and attitudes towards antidepressants. RESULTS: Of 694 patients screened in the two phases, the GPs rated 101 (15%) as depressed, acknowledged depression in 44 cases (6%), and offered treatment in 27 (4%), including antidepressants in 14 (2%). Offers of antidepressants were more likely in both phases where the GPs rated the depression as moderate rather than mild, and where they perceived a positive patient attitude to antidepressants. However, GP ratings of severity did not agree well with the validated screening instrument, and their assessments of patients' attitudes to treatment were only moderately related to patients' self-reports. CONCLUSIONS: In line with current guidelines, GPs base prescribing decisions on the perceived severity of depression, taking patients' preferences into account, but they do not accurately identify which patients are likely to benefit from treatment. Better ways to assess depression severity and patient attitudes towards antidepressants are needed in order to target treatment more appropriately.