Effects of a digital intervention on physical activity in adults: A randomized controlled trial in a large-scale sample.

Background: Physical inactivity is associated with health risks, contributing to various diseases and all-cause mortality. Despite recommendations for regular physical activity (PA), many adults remain inactive, influenced by socioeconomic and environmental factors. Digital interventions, particularly web-based PA programs, offer promising possibilities to promote PA across populations. These programs vary in their effectiveness, reflecting differences in design, user engagement, and behavior change techniques employed. Objective: This study evaluates the effectiveness of the 12-week multimodal web-based TKFitnessCoach. The PA online program is part of the TK-HealthCoach. This study investigates the program's impact on self-reported PA levels, goal attainment, healthrelated quality of life, body weight, and eating behavior, comparing an interactive personalized web-based intervention and non-interactive web-based health information. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial (RCT), participants were allocated to either the intervention group (IG), receiving access to the interactive TK-FitnessCoach, or the control group (CG) that was provided a static website with evidence-based information on PA. The study targeted a German-speaking adult population interested in improving health behavior. Data was assessed at T0 (beginning of the study), T1 (postintervention), T2, 6 months, and T3, 12 months follow-ups, focusing on self-reported PA at T3 and on various secondary outcomes. Results: We achieved equally distributed sociodemographics in both the IG and the CG with a mean age of 42.8 (IG), resp. 43.1 years (CG), and female participants of 76.1 % (IG), resp. 74.7 % (CG). PA at baseline was 277.9 min/week in the IG and 273.3 min/week in the CG. Both, the IG (n = 1153 in the Intention-to-treat (ITT) dataset) and CG (n = 1177 in the ITT dataset) exhibited significant increases in PA over time (IG(T3-T0) = 72.92 min/week; CG(T3-T0) = 74.12 min/week).However, the study did not find significant differences in the effectiveness of the interactive TK-FitnessCoach compared to the non-interactive control in terms of improving PA and related health outcomes. The intensity of using the TK-FitnessCoach was not associated with PA. Conclusions: Both programs were effective in promoting PA among adults, with no significant differences observed between the two RCT groups. This highlights the potential of digital interventions in addressing physical inactivity, suggesting that the effectiveness of such programs may not solely depend on their interactivity but also on the quality and relevance of the information provided. Further research is needed to explore optimization strategies for such interventions, especially for persons with low PA, including user engagement, behavior change techniques, and the integration of objective PA tracking methods. Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00020249; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00020249.

The Effect of Interactivity, Tailoring, and Use Intensity on the Effectiveness of an Internet-Based Smoking Cessation Intervention Over a 12-Month Period: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: eHealth approaches show promising results for smoking cessation (SC). They can improve quit rates, but rigorous research is sparse regarding their effectiveness and the effects of their interactivity, tailoring, and use intensity. OBJECTIVE: We examined the effectiveness of Techniker Krankenkasse Smoking Cessation Coaching (TK-SCC), an internet-based, tailored, and interactive SC intervention. Our hypotheses were as follows: hypothesis 1, in the intervention group (IG; access to TK-SCC), a clinically relevant number of participants will be abstinent at the 12-month follow-up (T3); hypothesis 2, the number of abstinent participants will be significantly greater in the IG than the control group (CG) at T3; and hypothesis 3, in the IG, more intense use of TK-SCC will be positively associated with abstinence. METHODS: Individuals who smoke were randomized into the IG (563/1115, 50.49%) or CG (552/1115, 49.51%), which received a noninteractive, nontailored, and information-only web-based intervention. Data were collected before the intervention, at the postintervention time point (T1), at the 4-month follow-up (T2), and at T3. We tested hypothesis 1 through equivalence tests between the IG's success rate and success rates of comparable effective interventions reported in 2 current meta-analyses. For hypothesis 2, we conducted binary logistic regressions. For hypothesis 3, we assigned the IG participants to 1 of 4 user types and used binary logistic regressions with user types as the independent variable and smoking abstinence as the dependent variable. RESULTS: In the IG, 11.5% (65/563) and 11.9% (67/563) of participants were smoke free at T1 and T3, respectively. These values were statistically equivalent to the effects in the 2 meta-analyses, which reported 9% (z score=0.64, P=.74) and 10.9% (z score=-0.71, P=.24) success rates, respectively. In the CG, 6.2% (34/552) of the participants were smoke free at T1, which increased up to 8.2% (45/552) at T3. The difference between the IG and CG was statistically significant only at T1 (odds ratio [OR] 2.0, 99% CI 1.1 to 3.6; P=.002), whereas the effect was nonsignificant following α error corrections at T3 (OR 1.6, 99% CI 0.9 to 2.7; P=.02). In the IG, constant users of the program became smoke free significantly more often than rare users of the program (T1: OR 15.0, 99% CI 6.1 to 36.9; P<.001; T3: OR 6.5, 99% CI 2.8 to 15.5; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: TK-SCC is effective for SC. However, its superiority compared with a minimal SC intervention could not be confirmed in the long term. Insufficient implementation of the techniques used and cotreatment bias could explain this outcome. Higher use intensity of TK-SCC was positively related to abstinence. Therefore, additional efforts to motivate users to adhere to intervention use as intended could improve the intervention's effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00020249, Universal Trial Number U1111-1245-0273; https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00020249. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s13063-021-05470-8.

Effects of a Web-Based Lifestyle Intervention on Weight Loss and Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in Adults With Overweight and Obesity: Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The high proportion of people with overweight and obesity has become a worldwide problem in recent decades, mainly due to health consequences, such as cardiovascular diseases, neoplasia, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Regarding effective countermeasures, the digitization of health services offers numerous potentials, which, however, have not yet been sufficiently evaluated. Web-based health programs are becoming increasingly interactive and can provide individuals with effective long-term weight management support. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of an interactive web-based weight loss program on anthropometric, cardiometabolic, and behavioral variables and to compare it with a noninteractive web-based weight loss program. METHODS: The randomized controlled trial included people who were aged between 18 and 65 years (mean 48.92, SD 11.17 years) and had a BMI of 27.5 to 34.9 kg/m2 (mean 30.71, SD 2.13 kg/m2). Participants (n=153) were assigned to either (1) an interactive and fully automated web-based health program (intervention) or (2) a noninteractive web-based health program (control). The intervention program focused on dietary energy density and allowed for dietary documentation with appropriate feedback on energy density and nutrients. The control group only received information on weight loss and energy density, but the website did not contain interactive content. Examinations were performed at baseline (t0), at the end of the 12-week intervention (t1), and at 6 months (t2) and 12 months (t3) thereafter. The primary outcome was body weight. The secondary outcomes were cardiometabolic variables as well as dietary and physical activity behaviors. Robust linear mixed models were used to evaluate the primary and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The intervention group showed significant improvements in anthropometric variables, such as body weight (P=.004), waist circumference (P=.002), and fat mass (P=.02), compared with the control group over the course of the study. The mean weight loss after the 12-month follow-up was 4.18 kg (4.7%) in the intervention group versus 1.29 kg (1.5%) in the control group compared with the initial weight. The results of the nutritional analysis showed that the energy density concept was significantly better implemented in the intervention group. Significant differences in cardiometabolic variables were not detected between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The interactive web-based health program was effective in reducing body weight and improving body composition in adults with overweight and obesity. However, these improvements were not associated with relevant changes in cardiometabolic variables, although it should be noted that the study population was predominantly metabolically healthy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00020249; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00020249. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.3390/ijerph19031393.

Barriers to utilisation of cancer rehabilitation from the expert's view: A cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to investigate barriers to utilisation of cancer rehabilitation by querying a large sample of various professionals in health care with a comprehensive set of barriers. METHODS: We developed a questionnaire comprising 55 barriers to utilisation of cancer rehabilitation and administered it to four different types of medical, care and social work experts involved in the referral to cancer rehabilitation. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted and the extracted factors were ranked by mean values. Additionally, ANOVAs were calculated to test for group differences. RESULTS: Our sample (N = 606) consisted of 249 physicians, 194 social workers, 105 nurses and 55 psychologists in Germany. We identified seven barrier-dimensions: low appreciation of rehabilitation by professionals, insufficient coordination, insufficient application procedure, rehabilitation requirements not met, patients' unfulfilled demands, patients' social responsibilities and patients' coping style, with the latter being rated as the most obstructive thereof. Furthermore, we found statistically significant group differences for six of these factors with small- to medium-sized effects. CONCLUSION: Our results support previous publications implicating the patients' coping style as a barrier. We furthermore found evidence for barriers relating to processes and organisational issues, thereby expanding on the scope of patient-oriented publications. Suggestions for improving patients' health services accessibility are made.

[Barriers in the Application Process for Oncological Rehabilitation: A Nationwide Expert Study]. / Barrieren der Antragstellung in der Onkologischen Rehabilitation: Eine bundesweite Expertenstudie.

PURPOSE: From the perspective of various expert groups involved in the care of oncological patients, barriers to the application process of oncological rehabilitation programs will be identified. The study was funded by the German Pension Insurance Association (DRV). METHODS: Based on an interview study (N=61), a questionnaire instrument with 55 items describing possible barriers in the application process was designed and implemented online. Participants with more than 33% missing values were excluded from the analyses. Mean value analyses were used to identify the most significant relevance. To identify overall dimensions an explorative factor analysis was conducted . RESULTS: A total of 606 experts from the oncological field were included in the analyses. Among them were 249 doctors, 194 social workers, 105 nurses / medical assistants, 55 psychologists / psycho-oncologists and three other professional groups. The queried experts were on average 51 years old (SD=10.4) and had been working in the oncological field for 17 years (SD=9.8). The barriers could be assigned to the following seven factor-analytically determined content sections: coping style, application procedure, rehabilitation requirements, coordination, social responsibilities, desires of patient and the priority of rehabilitation. According to the experts statements the main obstacles to an application were the patient's desire for normality, the rigid deadline for the application and the application procedure which is difficult for patients with a migration background to understand. It was also pointed out that it is difficult to place multimorbid patients in rehabilitation facilities. CONCLUSION: The following recommendations for action to facilitate access to rehabilitation can be derived from the expert study: optimization of the coordination between different expert groups, institutions and the cost units, flexibilisation of the deadline for follow-up, simplifying the application process, providing applications/information material in additional languages, orienting rehabilitation clinics towards specific patient groups.

[Barriers in the Application Process for Oncological Rehabilitation: Results of a Qualitative Expert Survey]. / Barrieren bei der Antragstellung zur onkologischen Rehabilitation: Ergebnisse einer qualitativen Expertenbefragung.

PURPOSE: In this study, which was funded by the German Federal Pension Fund (DRV), barriers in the application process for oncological rehabilitation services were examined from the perspective of various expert groups. METHODS: In an exploratory multicentre qualitative cross-sectional study 61 semi-structured interviews with experts working in oncological care were conducted: Physicians (n=26), social workers (n=22), psychologists/psycho-oncologists (n=6), nurses/medical assistants (n=5), administrative staff of the DRV (n=2). In guided interviews the participants were asked about their experiences with rehabilitation applications as well as their estimations and evaluations regarding possible reasons for non-utilisation. The evaluation of the interviews was computerized and based on the qualitative content analysis by Mayring. RESULTS: The respondents had an average age of 52.51 years (SD=10.06; min=25, max=71) and were working in the consultation or treatment of oncological patients for an average of 19.26 years (SD=10.15; min=1, max=42). In total, 854 statements were coded and assigned to the following three main categories: expert-related, system-related and patient-related barriers. In the first main category, scepticism about the benefits of rehabilitation services and an insufficiently met need for information on the part of experts became the focus of attention. In the main category of system-related barriers, aspects were mentioned that addressed the application procedure, the low availability of, for example, outpatient rehabilitation services and the absence of a functioning referral system. The main category of patient-related barriers included psychosocial factors such as subcategories on the topic of coping with the disease which include the patient's desire to come home, experience everyday life again and the fear of being confronted with the disease. CONCLUSION: The exploratory study revealed potential barriers in the application process for oncological rehabilitation services from an expert perspective. In particular, the findings form the basis for a multi-dimensional assessment instrument that can be used to analyze the barriers in a standardised way and to derive individual recommendations for action.