Cited by 54Digital Mental Health InterventionsBehavioral Health and InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Impact of educational level on study attrition and evaluation of web-based computer-tailored interventions: results from seven randomized controlled trials

Open access
Reinwand, Dominique A, Crutzen, Rik, Elfeddali, Iman, Schneider, Francine, Schulz, Daniela Nadine, Stanczyk, Nicola Esther, Tange, Huibert, Voncken-Brewster, Viola +3 more·2015·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Web-based computer-tailored interventions have shown to be effective in improving health behavior; however, high dropout attrition is a major issue in these interventions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess whether people with a lower educational level drop out from studies more frequently compared to people with a higher educational level and to what extent this depends on evaluation of these interventions. METHODS: Data from 7 randomized controlled trials of Web-based computer-tailored interventions were used to investigate dropout rates among participants with different educational levels. To be able to compare higher and lower educated participants, intervention evaluation was assessed by pooling data from these studies. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess whether intervention evaluation predicted dropout at follow-up measurements. RESULTS: In 3 studies, we found a higher study dropout attrition rate among participants with a lower educational level, whereas in 2 studies we found that middle educated participants had a higher dropout attrition rate compared to highly educated participants. In 4 studies, no such significant difference was found. Three of 7 studies showed that participants with a lower or middle educational level evaluated the interventions significantly better than highly educated participants ("Alcohol-Everything within the Limit": F2,376=5.97, P=.003; "My Healthy Behavior": F2,359=5.52, P=.004; "Master Your Breath": F2,317=3.17, P=.04). One study found lower intervention evaluation by lower educated participants compared to participants with a middle educational level ("Weight in Balance": F2,37=3.17, P=.05). Low evaluation of the interventions was not a significant predictor of dropout at a later follow-up measurement in any of the studies. CONCLUSIONS: Dropout attrition rates were higher among participants with a lower or middle educational level compared with highly educated participants. Although lower educated participants evaluated the interventions better in approximately half of the studies, evaluation did not predict dropout attrition. Further research is needed to find other explanations for high dropout rates among lower educated participants.

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.4941

Cites

93 of 93 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Smit E, de Vries H, Hoving C. Effectiveness of a Web-based multiple tailored smoking cessation program: a randomized controlled trial among Dutch adult smokers. J Med Internet Res 2012;14(3):e82 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.1812] [Medline: 22687887] · DOI
  2. Smit E, de Vries H, Hoving C. The PAS study: a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a web-based multiple tailored smoking cessation programme and tailored counselling by practice nurses. Contemp Clin Trials 2010 May;31(3):251-258. [doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2010.03.001] [Medline: 20215047] · DOI
  3. Cumming G. Understanding the New Statistics: Effect Sizes, Confidence Intervals, and Meta-Analysis (Multivariate Applications Series). New York: Routledge Academic; 2012.
  4. Crutzen R, Ruiter R. Interest in behavior change interventions: a conceptual model. Eur Health Psychol 2015;17:6-11 [FREE Full text]
  5. Murray E, White I, Varagunam M, Godfrey C, Khadjesari Z, McCambridge J. Attrition revisited: adherence and retention in a web-based alcohol trial. J Med Internet Res 2013;15(8):e162 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.2336] [Medline: 23996958] · DOI
  6. Elfeddali I, Bolman C, Candel Math JJ, Wiers W, de Vries H. Preventing smoking relapse via Web-based computer-tailored feedback: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2012;14(4):e109 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.2057] [Medline: 22903145] · DOI
  7. Edited by P Bamidis; submitted 17.07.15; peer-reviewed by P Krebs, P Antoniou, E Paraskevopoulos; comments to author 12.08.15; revised version received 08.09.15; accepted 22.09.15; published 07.10.15 Please cite as: Reinwand DA, Crutzen R, Elfeddali I, Schneider F, Schulz DN, Smit ES, Stanczyk NE, Tange H, Voncken-Brewster V, Walthouwer MJL, Hoving C, de Vries H Impact of Educational Level on Study Attrition and Evaluation of Web-Based Computer-Tailored Interventions: Results From Seven Randomized Controlled Trials J Med Internet Res 2015;17(10):e228 URL: http://www.jmir.org/2015/10/e228/ doi:10.2196/jmir.4941 PMID:26446779
  8. ©Dominique A Reinwand, Rik Crutzen, Iman Elfeddali, Francine Schneider, Daniela Nadine Schulz, Eline Suzanne Smit, Nicola Esther Stanczyk, Huibert Tange, Viola Voncken-Brewster, Michel Jean Louis Walthouwer, Ciska Hoving, Hein de Vries. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 07.10

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reinwand, D. A., Crutzen, R., Elfeddali, I., Schneider, F., Schulz, D. N., Stanczyk, N. E., Tange, H., Voncken-Brewster, V., Walthouwer, M. J. L., Hoving, C., & de Vries, H.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Tilburg University (NL)
Corresponding author
Reinwand, Dominique A
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2015-10-07
Volume
17
Issue
10
Pages
e228
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1950226912
Cited by
54
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4
FWCI
7.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
educational attainment, study dropout, attrition, intervention evaluation, health behavior change, online health interventions
MeSH terms
Adult, Computers, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Health Behavior, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, 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