Cited by 97Digital Mental Health InterventionsBipolar Disorder and TreatmentMobile Health and mHealth Applications

The Ins and Outs of an Online Bipolar Education Program: A Study of Program Attrition

Open access
Nicholas, Jennifer, Proudfoot, Judith, Parker, Gordon, Gillis, Inika, Burckhardt, Rowan, Manicavasagar, Vijaya, Smith, Meg·2010·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The science of eHealth interventions is rapidly evolving. However, despite positive outcomes, evaluations of eHealth applications have thus far failed to explain the high attrition rates that are associated with some eHealth programs. Patient adherence remains an issue, and the science of attrition is still in its infancy. To our knowledge, there has been no in-depth qualitative study aimed at identifying the reasons for nonadherence to-and attrition from- online interventions. OBJECTIVE: This paper explores the predictors of attrition and participant-reported reasons for nonadherence to an online psycho-education program for people newly diagnosed with a bipolar disorder. METHODS: As part of an ongoing randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating an online psycho-education program for people newly diagnosed with a bipolar disorder, we undertook an in-depth qualitative study to identify participants' reasons for nonadherence to, and attrition from, the online intervention as well as a quantitative study investigating predictors of attrition. Within the RCT, 370 participants were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 active interventions or an attention control condition. Descriptive analyses and chi-square tests were used to explore the completion rates of 358 participants, and standard regression analysis was used to identify predictors of attrition. The data from interviews with a subsample of 39 participants who did not complete the online program were analyzed using "thematic analysis" to identify patterns in reported reasons for attrition. RESULTS: Overall, 26.5% of the sample did not complete their assigned intervention. Standard multiple regression analysis revealed that young age (P= .004), male gender (P= .001), and clinical recruitment setting (P= .001) were significant predictors of attrition (F(7,330)= 8.08, P< .001). Thematic analysis of interview data from the noncompleter subsample revealed that difficulties associated with the acute phases of bipolar disorder, not wanting to think about one's illness, and program factors such as the information being too general and not personally tailored were the major reasons for nonadherence. CONCLUSIONS: The dropout rate was equivalent to other Internet interventions and to face-to-face therapy. Findings from our qualitative study provide participant-reported reasons for discontinuing the online intervention, which, in conjunction with the quantitative investigations about predictors, add to understanding about Internet interventions. However, further research is needed to determine whether there are systematic differences between those who complete and those who do not complete eHealth interventions. Ultimately, this may lead to the identification of population subgroups that most benefit from eHealth interventions and to informing the development of strategies to improve adherence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12608000411347; http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12608000411347.aspx (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5uX4uYwVN).

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 · 10.2196/jmir.1450

Cites

30 of 30 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?

  • Previous studies have found that younger participants and those with higher depressive symptoms are more likely to drop out of a mental health intervention.

    “Previous studies have also found that younger participants are more likely to drop out of a mental health intervention, as are participants with higher depressive symptoms (Christensen, Griffiths, & Farrer, 2009; Nicholas et al., 2010).”
  • Researchers have identified factors that correlate with adherence, including patient characteristics, context of delivery, aspects of delivery, and characteristics of the intervention.

    “Researchers have also identified factors that correlate with adherence, including patient characteristics [17] (eg, gender), the context of delivery [18] (eg, classroom), aspects of the delivery [19] (eg, therapist support), and characteristics of the intervention itself [20] (eg, tailored content).”
  • Many researchers have found that women, older people, and well-educated people are all more likely to demonstrate adherence to Web-based interventions than males, younger people, and less-educated people.

    “Although many researchers have found that women, older people, and well-educated people are all more likely to demonstrate adherence to Web-based interventions than males, younger people, and less-educated people [65,66,68,69]”
  • Characteristics of the intervention that may improve adherence include a strong theoretical foundation, perceived personal relevance, perceived effectiveness, tailoring, persuasive technologies, credibility, social networking, and regular "push factors" including human support and/or periodic prompts.

    “Characteristics of the intervention that may improve adherence to the intervention include a strong theoretical foundation [41], perceived personal relevance to the user [65,66], perceived effectiveness [67,68], tailoring [69,70], persuasive technologies [71], credibility [72,73], social networking [74,75], and regular “push factors” including human support [76-78] and/or periodic prompts (eg, by”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nicholas, J., Proudfoot, J., Parker, G., Gillis, I., Burckhardt, R., Manicavasagar, V., & Smith, M.
Affiliations
  • Black Dog Institute (AU)
  • Western Sydney University (AU)
Corresponding author
Proudfoot, Judith
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2010-12-19
Volume
12
Issue
5
Pages
e57
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1974545280
Cited by
97
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
FWCI
8.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Australian Rotary Health
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (510135)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
attrition, dropout, online psychoeducation, bipolar disorder, digital health interventions, participant adherence, predictors of attrition, reasons for discontinuation, personalized interventions, young age, male gender, online intervention, mental health education programs, completion rates
MeSH terms
Adult, Bipolar Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Dropouts, Patient Education as Topic, Regression Analysis, Self-Help Groups, Social Support, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, User-Computer Interface, Information Storage and Retrieval, Treatment Outcome, Internet, Young Adult

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