Dropout from an eHealth intervention for adults with type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Adequate self-management is the cornerstone of type 2 diabetes treatment, as people make the majority of daily treatment measures and health decisions. The increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and the complexity of diabetes self-management demonstrate the need for innovative and effective ways to deliver self-management support. eHealth interventions are promoted worldwide and hold a great potential in future health care for people with chronic diseases such as T2DM. However, many eHealth interventions face high dropout rates. This led to our interest in the experiences of participants who dropped out of an eHealth intervention for adults with T2DM, based on the Guided Self-Determination (GSD) counseling method. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to explore experiences with an eHealth intervention based on GSD in general practice from the perspective of those who dropped out and to understand their reasons for dropping out. To the best of our knowledge, no previous qualitative study has focused on participants who withdrew from an eHealth self-management support intervention for adults with T2DM. METHODS: A qualitative design based on telephone interviews was used to collect data. The sample comprised 12 adults with type 2 diabetes who dropped out of an eHealth intervention. Data were collected in 2016 and subjected to qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: We identified one overall theme: "Losing motivation for intervention participation." This theme was illustrated by four categories related to the participants' experiences of the eHealth intervention: (1) frustrating technology, (2) perceiving the content as irrelevant and incomprehensible, (3) choosing other activities and perspectives, and (4) lacking face-to-face encounters. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the eHealth intervention based on GSD without face-to-face encounters with nurses reduced participants' motivation for engagement in the intervention. To maintain motivation, our study points to the importance of combining eHealth with regular face-to-face consultations. Our study also shows that the perceived benefit of the GSD eHealth intervention intertwined with choosing to focus on other matters in complex daily lives are critical aspects in motivation for such interventions. This indicates the importance of giving potential participants tailored information about the aim, the content, and the effort needed to remain engaged in complex interventions so that eligible participants are recruited. Finally, motivation for engagement in the eHealth intervention was influenced by the technology used in this study. It seems important to facilitate more user-friendly but high-security eHealth technology. Our findings have implications for improving the eHealth intervention and to inform researchers and health care providers who are organizing eHealth interventions focusing on self-management support in order to reduce dropout rates.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Help and clinical support from professionals increase motivation, intervention adherence and potential clinical benefits in mHealth programmes for type 2 diabetes.
“Several recent studies of mHealth programmes for T2D have highlighted the importance of help and clinical support from professionals to increase motivation, intervention adherence and potential clinical benefits [42,43].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 45 · Cited by 136
- Authors
- Lie, S. S., Karlsen, B., Oord, E. R., Graue, M., & Oftedal, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Stavanger (NO)
- Stavanger University Hospital (NO)
- Western Norway University of Applied Sciences (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Lie, Silje Stangeland
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Internet Research
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2017-05-30
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e187
- ISSN
- 1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5470008
- OpenAlex
- W2618851899
- Cited by
- 136
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 18.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Keywords
- type 2 diabetes, digital health interventions, intervention dropout, diabetes self-management support, guided self-determination, participant motivation, face-to-face consultation, general practice, technology usability, participant recruitment, chronic disease management, nurse-led care
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Dropouts, Telemedicine, Qualitative Research
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