基于网络的健康饮食和身体活动行为干预的有效性研究关于用户和使用情况的随机对照试验%A Kelders,Saskia M %A Van Gemert-Pijnen,Julia E.W.C %A Werkman,Andrea %A Nijland,Nicol %A Seydel,Erwin R %+特温特大学行为科学学院心理健康与技术系，CI H403，邮政信箱217，恩斯schede, 7500 AE，荷兰，31 6 51070689，s.m.kelders@utwente.nl %K随机对照试验%K使用%K eHealth %K干预%K消耗%K互联网%K坚持%K保留%D 2011年4月14日背景:最近的研究表明，基于网络的干预措施在改变饮食和身体活动(PA)行为方面具有潜力。然而，这些变化的途径尚不清楚。此外，不使用对这些干预构成了威胁。人们对参与者预测使用的特征知之甚少。目的:在本研究中，我们调查了健康体重助手(HWA)的使用者和效果，这是一种基于网络的干预措施，旨在健康饮食和PA行为。我们调查了拟议框架的价值(包括社会和经济因素、条件相关因素、患者相关因素、使用原因和满意度)，以预测哪些参与者是用户，哪些参与者是非用户。此外，我们还调查了HWA在主要结局、自我报告的饮食和身体活动行为方面的有效性。方法:我们的设计是一项双臂随机对照试验，将HWA与等候名单对照条件进行比较。 A total of 150 participants were allocated to the waiting list group, and 147 participants were allocated to the intervention group. Online questionnaires were filled out before the intervention period started and after the intervention period of 12 weeks. After the intervention period, respondents in the waiting list group could use the intervention. Objective usage data was obtained from the application itself. Results: In the intervention group, 64% (81/147) of respondents used the HWA at least once and were categorized as “users.” Of these, 49% (40/81) used the application only once. Increased age and not having a chronic condition increased the odds of having used the HWA (age: beta = 0.04, P = .02; chronic condition: beta = 2.24, P = .003). Within the intervention group, users scored better on dietary behavior and on knowledge about healthy behavior than nonusers (self-reported diet: χ22 = 8.4, P = .02; knowledge: F1,125 = 4.194, P = .04). Furthermore, users underestimated their behavior more often than nonusers, and nonusers overestimated their behavior more often than users (insight into dietary behavior: χ22 = 8.2, P = .02). Intention-to-treat analyses showed no meaningful significant effects of the intervention. Exploratory analyses of differences between pretest and posttest scores of users, nonusers, and the control group showed that on dietary behavior only the nonusers significantly improved (effect size r = −.23, P = .03), while on physical activity behavior only the users significantly improved (effect size r = −.17, P = .03). Conclusions: Respondents did not use the application as intended. From the proposed framework, a social and economic factor (age) and a condition-related factor (chronic condition) predicted usage. Moreover, users were healthier and more knowledgeable about healthy behavior than nonusers. We found no apparent effects of the intervention, although exploratory analyses showed that choosing to use or not to use the intervention led to different outcomes. Combined with the differences between groups at baseline, this seems to imply that these groups are truly different and should be treated as separate entities. Trial registration: Trial ID number: ISRCTN42687923; http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN42687923/ (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5xnGmvQ9Y) %M 21493191 %R 10.2196/jmir.1624 %U //www.mybigtv.com/2011/2/e32/ %U https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1624 %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21493191