Effectiveness of Human-Supported and Self-Help eHealth Lifestyle Interventions for Patients With Cardiometabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: eHealth is a useful tool to deliver lifestyle interventions for patients with cardiometabolic diseases. However, there are inconsistent findings about whether these eHealth interventions should be supported by a human professional, or whether self-help interventions are equally effective. METHODS: Databases were searched between January 1995 and October 2021 for randomized controlled trials on cardiometabolic diseases (cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus) and eHealth lifestyle interventions. A multilevel meta-analysis was used to pool clinical and behavioral health outcomes. Moderator analyses assessed the effect of intervention type (self-help versus human-supported), dose of human support (minor versus major part of intervention), and delivery mode of human support (remote versus blended). One hundred seven articles fulfilled eligibility criteria and 102 unique ( N = 20,781) studies were included. RESULTS: The analysis showed a positive effect of eHealth lifestyle interventions on clinical and behavioral health outcomes ( p < .001). However, these effects were not moderated by intervention type ( p = .169), dose ( p = .698), or delivery mode of human support ( p = .557). CONCLUSIONS: This shows that self-help eHealth interventions are equally effective as human-supported ones in improving health outcomes among patients with cardiometabolic disease. Future studies could investigate whether higher-quality eHealth interventions compensate for a lack of human support.Meta-analysis registration: PROSPERO CRD42021269263 .

Investigating Rewards and Deposit Contract Financial Incentives for Physical Activity Behavior Change Using a Smartphone App: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Financial incentive interventions for improving physical activity have proven to be effective but costly. Deposit contracts (in which participants pledge their own money) could be an affordable alternative. In addition, deposit contracts may have superior effects by exploiting the power of loss aversion. Previous research has often operationalized deposit contracts through loss framing a financial reward (without requiring a deposit) to mimic the feelings of loss involved in a deposit contract. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to disentangle the effects of incurring actual losses (through self-funding a deposit contract) and loss framing. We investigated whether incentive conditions are more effective than a no-incentive control condition, whether deposit contracts have a lower uptake than financial rewards, whether deposit contracts are more effective than financial rewards, and whether loss frames are more effective than gain frames. METHODS: Healthy participants (N=126) with an average age of 22.7 (SD 2.84) years participated in a 20-day physical activity intervention. They downloaded a smartphone app that provided them with a personalized physical activity goal and either required a €10 (at the time of writing: €1=US $0.98) deposit up front (which could be lost) or provided €10 as a reward, contingent on performance. Daily feedback on incentive earnings was provided and framed as either a loss or gain. We used a 2 (incentive type: deposit or reward) × 2 (feedback frame: gain or loss) between-subjects factorial design with a no-incentive control condition. Our primary outcome was the number of days participants achieved their goals. The uptake of the intervention was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Overall, financial incentive conditions (mean 13.10, SD 6.33 days goal achieved) had higher effectiveness than the control condition (mean 8.00, SD 5.65 days goal achieved; P=.002; ηp2=0.147). Deposit contracts had lower uptake (29/47, 62%) than rewards (50/50, 100%; P<.001; Cramer V=0.492). Furthermore, 2-way analysis of covariance showed that deposit contracts (mean 14.88, SD 6.40 days goal achieved) were not significantly more effective than rewards (mean 12.13, SD 6.17 days goal achieved; P=.17). Unexpectedly, loss frames (mean 10.50, SD 6.22 days goal achieved) were significantly less effective than gain frames (mean 14.67, SD 5.95 days goal achieved; P=.007; ηp2=0.155). CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives help increase physical activity, but deposit contracts were not more effective than rewards. Although self-funded deposit contracts can be offered at low cost, low uptake is an important obstacle to large-scale implementation. Unexpectedly, loss framing was less effective than gain framing. Therefore, we urge further research on their boundary conditions before using loss-framed incentives in practice. Because of limited statistical power regarding some research questions, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution, and future work should be done to confirm these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework Registries osf.io/34ygt; https://osf.io/34ygt.

Facilitators of and Barriers to Lifestyle Support and eHealth Solutions: Interview Study Among Health Care Professionals Working in Cardiac Care.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) pose a significant health threat and reduce both people's life expectancy and quality of life. Healthy living is a key component in the effective prevention and treatment of CVD. However, health care professionals (HCPs) experience difficulties in supporting lifestyle changes among their patients. eHealth can provide a solution to these barriers. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to provide insights into the factors HCPs find important in the support of patients with CVD in the uptake of and adherence to a healthy lifestyle and the perceived facilitators of and barriers to using eHealth to provide lifestyle support to patients with CVD. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with 16 Dutch HCPs specializing in lifestyle support in cardiac care. RESULTS: We identified 13 themes, of which the first 12 concerned lifestyle support in general and were related to intervention, patient, or health care. Throughout these themes, the use of eHealth reoccurred as a potential facilitator of or solution to barriers to lifestyle support. Our final theme specifically concerned barriers to the adoption and usability of eHealth. CONCLUSIONS: HCPs do recognize the potential advantages of eHealth while experiencing barriers to using digital tools. Incorporating their needs and values in the development of lifestyle support programs, especially eHealth, could increase their use and lead to a more widespread adoption of eHealth into health care.

Use Intention and User Expectations of Human-Supported and Self-Help eHealth Interventions: Internet-Based Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-help eHealth interventions provide automated support to change health behaviors without any further human assistance. The main advantage of self-help eHealth interventions is that they have the potential to lower the workload of health care professionals. However, one disadvantage is that they generally have a lower uptake. Possibly, the absence of a relationship with a health care professional (referred to as the working alliance) could lead to negative expectations that hinder the uptake of self-help interventions. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) identifies which expectations predict use intention. As there has been no previous research exploring how expectations affect the adoption of both self-help and human-supported eHealth interventions, this study is the first to investigate the impact of expectations on the uptake of both kinds of eHealth interventions. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the intention to use a self-help eHealth intervention compared to a human-supported eHealth intervention and the expectations that moderate this relationship. METHODS: A total of 146 participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 conditions (human-supported or self-help eHealth interventions). Participants evaluated screenshots of a human-supported or self-help app-based stress intervention. We measured intention to use the intervention-expected working alliance and the UTAUT constructs: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence. RESULTS: Use intention did not differ significantly between the 2 conditions (t142=-1.133; P=.26). Performance expectancy (F1,140=69.269; P<.001), effort expectancy (F1,140=3.961; P=.049), social influence (F1,140=90.025; P<.001), and expected working alliance (F1,140=26.435; P<.001) were positively related to use intention regardless of condition. The interaction analysis showed that performance expectancy (F1,140=4.363; P=.04) and effort expectancy (F1,140=4.102; P=.045) more strongly influenced use intention in the self-help condition compared to the human-supported condition. CONCLUSIONS: As we found no difference in use intention, our results suggest that we could expect an equal uptake of self-help eHealth interventions and human-supported ones. However, attention should be paid to people who have doubts about the intervention's helpfulness or ease of use. For those people, providing additional human support would be beneficial to ensure uptake. Screening user expectations could help health care professionals optimize self-help eHealth intervention uptake in practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registries osf.io/n47cz; https://osf.io/n47cz.

Human cues in eHealth to promote lifestyle change: An experimental field study to examine adherence to self-help interventions.

eHealth lifestyle interventions without human support (self-help interventions) are generally less effective, as they suffer from lower adherence levels. To solve this, we investigated whether (1) using a text-based conversational agent (TCA) and applying human cues contribute to a working alliance with the TCA, and whether (2) adding human cues and establishing a positive working alliance increase intervention adherence. Participants (N = 121) followed a TCA-supported app-based physical activity intervention. We manipulated two types of human cues: visual (ie, message appearance) and relational (ie, message content). We employed a 2 (visual cues: yes, no) x 2 (relational cues: yes, no) between-subjects design, resulting in four experimental groups: (1) visual and relational cues, (2) visual cues only, (3) relational cues only, or (4) no human cues. We measured the working alliance with the Working Alliance Inventory Short Revised form and intervention adherence as the number of days participants responded to the TCA's messages. Contrary to expectations, the working alliance was unaffected by using human cues. Working alliance was positively related to adherence (t(78) = 3.606, p = .001). Furthermore, groups who received visual cues showed lower adherence levels compared to those who received relational cues only or no cues (U = 1140.5, z = -3.520, p < .001). We replicated the finding that establishing a working alliance contributes to intervention adherence, independently of the use of human cues in a TCA. However, we were unable to show that adding human cues impacted the working alliance and increased adherence. The results indicate that adding visual cues to a TCA may even negatively affect adherence, possibly because it may create confusion concerning the true nature of the coach, which may prompt unrealistic expectations.

Less stick more carrot? Increasing the uptake of deposit contract financial incentives for physical activity: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Financial incentives are a promising tool to help people increase their physical activity, but they are expensive to provide. Deposit contracts are a type of financial incentive in which participants pledge their own money. However, low uptake is a crucial obstacle to the large-scale implementation of deposit contracts. Therefore, we investigated whether (1) matching the deposit 1:1 (doubling what is deposited) and (2) allowing for customizable deposit amounts increased the uptake and short term effectiveness of a deposit contract for physical activity. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 137 healthy students (age M = 21.6 years) downloaded a smartphone app that provided them with a tailored step goal and then randomized them to one of four experimental conditions. The deposit contract required either a €10 fixed deposit or a customizable deposit with any amount between €1 and €20 upfront. Furthermore, the deposit was either not matched or 1:1 matched (doubled) with a reward provided by the experiment. During 20 intervention days, daily feedback on goal progress and incentive earnings was provided by the app. We investigated effects on the uptake (measured as agreeing to participate and paying the deposit) and effectiveness of behavioral adoption (measured as participant days goal achieved). FINDINGS: Overall, the uptake of deposit contracts was 83.2%, and participants (n = 113) achieved 14.9 out of 20 daily step goals. A binary logistic regression showed that uptake odds were 4.08 times higher when a deposit was matched (p = .010) compared to when it was not matched. Furthermore, uptake odds were 3.53 times higher when a deposit was customizable (p = .022) compared to when it was fixed. Two-way ANCOVA showed that matching (p = .752) and customization (p = .143) did not impact intervention effectiveness. However, we did find a marginally significant interaction effect of deposit matching X deposit customization (p = .063, ηp2 = 0.032). Customization decreased effectiveness when deposits were not matched (p = .033, ηp2 = 0.089), but had no effect when deposits were matched (p = .776, ηp2 = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We provide the first experimental evidence that both matching and customization increase the uptake of a deposit contract for physical activity. We recommend considering both matching and customization to overcome lack of uptake, with a preference for customization since matching a deposit imposes significant additional costs. However, since we found indications that customizable deposits might reduce effectiveness (when the deposits are not matched), we urge for more research on the effectiveness of customizable deposit contracts. Finally, future research should investigate which participant characteristics are predictive of deposit contract uptake and effectiveness. PRE-REGISTRATION: OSF Registries, https://osf.io/cgq48.

Lifestyle support preferences of patients with cardiovascular diseases: What lifestyle support might work best for whom?

Background: Lifestyle support is essential in preventing and treating cardiovascular diseases (CVD), and eHealth may be an easy and affordable solution to provide this support. However, CVD patients vary in their ability and interest to use eHealth. This study investigates demographic characteristics determining CVD patients' online and offline lifestyle support preferences. Methods: We used a cross-sectional study design. 659 CVD patients (Harteraad panel) completed our questionnaire. We assessed demographic characteristics and preferred lifestyle support type (coach, eHealth, family/friends, self-supportive). Results: Respondents mostly preferred being self-supportive (n = 179, 27.2%), and a coach in a group or individually (n = 145, 22.0%; n = 139, 21.1%). An app/internet to work independently (n = 89, 13.5%) or being in touch with other CVD patients (n = 44, 6.7%) was least preferred. Men were more likely to prefer being supported by family/friends (p = .016) or self-supportive (p < .001), while women preferred a coach individually or via an app/internet (p < .001). Older patients mostly preferred self-support (p = .001). Patients with low social support were more likely to prefer being coached individually (p < .001), but not support from family/friends (p = .002). Conclusion: Men and older patients are more interested in being self-supportive, and patients with lower levels of social support could need extra support outside their social network. eHealth could provide a solution, but attention should be paid to spike interest for digital interventions among certain groups.