ABSTRACT
The Internet may be an effective medium for delivering smoking prevention to children. Consider This, an Internet-based program, was hypothesized to reduce expectations concerning smoking and smoking prevalence. Group-randomized pretest-posttest controlled trials were conducted in Australia (n = 2,077) and the United States (n = 1,234) in schools containing Grades 6 through 9. Australian children using Consider This reported reduced 30-day smoking prevalence. This reduction was mediated by decreased subjective norms. The amount of program exposure was low in many classes, but program use displayed a dose-response relationship with reduced smoking prevalence. American children only reported lower expectations for smoking in the future. Intervening to prevent smoking is a challenge, and this data suggest small benefits from an Internet-based program that are unlikely to be of practical significance unless increased by improved implementation. Implementation remains the major challenge to delivering interventions via the Internet, both for health educators and researchers.
Subject(s)
Health Education/methods , Internet , Smoking Prevention , Adolescent , Australia , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , Culture , Female , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Male , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Program Evaluation , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Smoking/epidemiology , Smoking/psychology , United StatesABSTRACT
The Internet is a new technology for health communication in communities. The 5 a Day, the Rio Grande Way website intended to increase fruits and vegetables (FV) consumption was evaluated in a rural region enrolling 755 adults (65% Hispanic, 9% Native American, 88% female) in a randomized pretest-posttest controlled trial in 2002-2004. A total of 473 (63%) adults completed a 4-month follow-up. The change in daily intake on a food frequency questionnaire (control: mean = - 0.26 servings; intervention: mean = 0.38; estimated difference = 0.64, SD = 0.52, t(df = 416) = 1.22, p = 0.223) and single item (13.9% eating 5 + servings at pretest, 19.8% posttest for intervention; 17.4%, 13.8% for controls; odds ratio (OR) = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.07, 3.17) was in the expected direction but significant only for the single item. Website use was low and variable (logins: M = 3.3, range = 1 to 39.0; total time: M = 22.2 minutes, range = 0 to 322.7), but it was associated positively with fruit and vegetable intake (total time: Spearman r = 0.14, p = 0.004 for food frequency; Spearman r = 0.135, p = 0.004 for single item). A nutrition website may improve FV intake. The comparison on the food frequency measure may have been undermined by its high variability. Websites may be successful in community settings only when they are used enough by adults to influence them.