Cited by 193Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsBehavioral Health and Interventions

Methodological issues in research on web-based behavioral interventions

Open access
Danaher, Brian G., Seeley, John R.·2009·Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Web-based behavioral intervention research is rapidly growing. PURPOSE: We review methodological issues shared across Web-based intervention research to help inform future research in this area. METHODS: We examine measures and their interpretation using exemplar studies and our research. RESULTS: We report on research designs used to evaluate Web-based interventions and recommend newer, blended designs. We review and critique methodological issues associated with recruitment, engagement, and social validity. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that there is value to viewing this burgeoning realm of research from the broader context of behavior change research. We conclude that many studies use blended research designs, that innovative mantling designs such as the Multiphase Optimization Strategy and Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial methods hold considerable promise and should be used more widely, and that Web-based controls should be used instead of usual care or no-treatment controls in public health research. We recommend topics for future research that address participant recruitment, engagement, and social validity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12160-009-9129-0

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Increased engagement is not necessarily better under all circumstances or with all BITs.

    “At the same time, however, we should avoid overgeneralized assumptions that increased engagement is necessarily better under all circumstances or with all BITs (68, 73).”
  • The evidence that usage is associated with intended outcomes is mixed, and largely correlational.

    “Firstly, the evidence that usage is associated with intended outcomes is mixed, and largely correlational.[21][22][23]”
  • Metrics associated with duration of time spent on the website were not collected because this metric can be confounded by factors such as internet connection speed, the ability of participants to access a page and leave the room, and the fact that more viewing is not linearly tied with better outcomes.

    “Similarly metrics associated with duration of time spent on the website was not collected given that this metric can be confounded by factors such as internet connection speed, the ability of participants to access a page and leave the room, and the fact that more viewing is not linearly tied with better outcomes [20].”
  • From the perspective of translational clinical research, using a standard care control condition represents a preferred methodology for a study of this nature.

    “From the perspective of translational clinical research, our use of a standard care control condition represents a preferred methodology for a study of this nature [20].”
  • There have been calls to develop a more scientific approach to the design and evaluation of Web-based interventions, including the analysis of engagement.

    “As the corpus of research studies grows, there have been calls to develop a more scientific approach to the design and evaluation of Web-based interventions: a methodology that includes the analysis of engagement.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 81 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Danaher, B. G., & Seeley, J. R.
Affiliations
Oregon Research Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Danaher, Brian G.
Venue
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Published
2009-08
Volume
38
Issue
1
Pages
28-39
ISSN
  • 0742-5554 (ISSN-L)
  • 0883-6612
  • 1532-4796
OpenAlex
W2147363989
Cited by
193
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 15
FWCI
1.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01CA118575, CA84225, CA118575, R01CA084225)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
e-health, research design, multiphase optimization strategy, sequential multiple assignment randomized trial, participant recruitment, participant engagement, social validity, web-based control, behavior change
MeSH terms
Behavior Therapy, Humans, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Research Design, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Patient Satisfaction, Patient Selection, Internet

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review