Effectiveness of the mHealth intervention 'MyDayPlan' to increase physical activity: an aggregated single case approach.

BACKGROUND: e- and mHealth interventions using self-regulation techniques like action and coping planning have the potential to tackle the worldwide problem of physical inactivity. However, they often use one-week self-regulation cycles, providing support toward an active lifestyle on a weekly basis. This may be too long to anticipate on certain contextual factors that may fluctuate from day to day and may influence physical activity. Consequently, the formulated action and coping plans often lack specificity and instrumentality, which may decrease effectiveness of the intervention. The aim of this study was to evaluate effectiveness of a self-regulation, app-based intervention called 'MyDayPlan'. "MyDayPlan' provides an innovative daily cycle in which users are guided towards more physical activity via self-regulation techniques such as goal setting, action planning, coping planning and self-monitoring of behaviour. METHODS: An ABAB single-case design was conducted in 35 inactive adults between 18 and 58 years (M = 40 years). The A phases (A1 and A2) were the control phases in which the 'MyDayPlan' intervention was not provided. The B phases (B1 and B2) were the intervention phases in which 'MyDayPlan' was used on a daily basis. The length of the four phases varied within and between the participants. Each phase lasted a minimum of 5 days and the total study lasted 32 days for each participant. Participants wore a Fitbit activity tracker during waking hours to assess number of daily steps as an outcome. Single cases were aggregated and data were analysed using multilevel models to test intervention effects and possible carry-over effects. RESULTS: Results showed an average intervention effect with a significant increase in number of daily steps from the control to intervention phases for each AB combination. From A1 to B1, an increase of 1424 steps (95% CI [775.42, 2072.32], t (1082) = 4.31,p < .001), and from A2 to B2, an increase of 1181 steps (95% CI [392.98, 1968.16], t (1082) = 2.94, p = .003) were found. Furthermore, the number of daily steps decreased significantly (1134 steps) when going from the first intervention phase (B1) to the second control phase (A2) (95% CI [- 1755.60, - 512.38], t (1082) = - 3.58, p < .001). We found no evidence for a difference in trend between the two control (95% CI [- 114.59, 197.99], t (1078) = .52, p = .60) and intervention phases (95% CI [- 128.79,284.22], t (1078) = .74, p = .46). This reveals, in contrast to what was hypothesized, no evidence for a carry-over effect after removing the 'MyDayPlan' app after the first intervention phase (B1). CONCLUSION: This study adds evidence that the self-regulation mHealth intervention, 'MyDayPlan' has the capacity to positively influence physical activity levels in an inactive adult population. Furthermore, this study provides evidence for the potential of interventions adopting a daily self-regulation cycle in general.

Acceptability and feasibility of the mHealth intervention 'MyDayPlan' to increase physical activity in a general adult population.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health (eHealth) and mobile health (mHealth) interventions have the potential to tackle the worldwide problem of physical inactivity. However, they often suffer from large attrition rates. Consequently, feasibility and acceptability of interventions have become important matters in the creation of e- and mHealth interventions. The aim of this study was to evaluate participants' opinions regarding acceptability and feasibility of a self-regulation, app-based intervention called 'MyDayPlan'. 'MyDayPlan' provides an innovative daily cycle providing several self-regulation techniques throughout the day that guide users towards an active lifestyle via various self-regulation techniques. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 adults after using the app for 2 weeks. A directed content analysis was performed using NVivo Software. RESULTS: 'MyDayPlan' was well-received and seems to be feasible and acceptable with inactive adults. The straightforward lay out and ease of use of the app were appreciated. Furthermore, the incorporation of the techniques 'action planning', and 'prompting review of behavioral goals' was positively evaluated. However, the users gave some recommendations: implementation of activity trackers to self-monitor physical activity could be of added value. Furthermore, increasing intuitiveness by minimizing text input and providing more preprogrammed options could further increase the ease of use. Finally, users indicated that they would benefit from more guidance during the "coping planning" component (barrier identification/problem solving), for example by receiving more tailored examples. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, adaptations will be made to the 'MyDayPlan' app before evaluating its effectiveness. Furthermore, involving potential end users and evaluating acceptability and feasibility during the development of an e- and mHealth intervention is key. Also, creating interventions with a large ease of use and straightforward layout that provides tailored support during action and coping planning is key.

Content validity and methodological considerations in ecological momentary assessment studies on physical activity and sedentary behaviour: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a method of collecting real-time data based on repeated measures and observations that take place in participant's daily environment. EMA has many advantages over more traditional, retrospective questionnaires. However, EMA faces some challenges to reach its full potential. The aims of this systematic review are to (1) investigate whether and how content validity of the items (i.e. the specific questions that are part of a larger EMA questionnaire) used in EMA studies on physical activity and sedentary behaviour was assessed, and (2) provide an overview of important methodological considerations of EMA in measuring physical activity and sedentary behaviour. METHODS: Thirty papers (twenty unique studies) were systematically reviewed and variables were coded and analysed within the following 4 domains: (1) Content validity, (2) Sampling approach, (3) Data input modalities and (4) Degree of EMA completion. RESULTS: Only about half of the studies reported the specific items (n = 12) and the source of the items (n = 11). None of the studies specifically assessed the content validity of the items used. Only a minority (n = 5) of the studies reported any training, and one tested the comprehensibility of the EMA items. A wide variability was found in the design and methodology of the EMA. A minority of the studies (n = 7) reported a rationale for the used prompt frequency, time selection, and monitoring period. Retrospective assessment periods varied from 'now' to 'in the last 3.5 hours'. In some studies there was a possibility to delay (n = 6) or deactivate (n = 10) the prompt, and some provided reminders after the first prompt (n = 9). CONCLUSIONS: Almost no EMA studies reported the content validation of the items used. We recommend using the COSMIN checklist (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) to report on the content validity of EMA items. Furthermore, as often no rationale was provided for several methodological decisions, the following three recommendations are made. First, provide a rationale for choosing the sampling modalities. Second, to ensure assessment 'in the moment', think carefully about the retrospective assessment period, reminders, and deactivation of the prompt. Third, as high completion rates are important for representativeness of the data and generalizability of the findings, report completion rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This review is registered in PROSPERO, the International prospective register of systematic reviews (registration number: CRD42017077996).

Quality of life and effectiveness of diabetes care in three different settings in Leuven.

BACKGROUND: The new diabetes protocol, formulated in Belgium as a consensus between the National Institution of Health Insurance and diabetologists, implicitly assumes the care of type 1 diabetic patients to be more efficient at the specialist level (SP) in hospital, although GPs frequently are involved in diabetes care. OBJECTIVES: A study was carried out in order to highlight differences in diabetes care between three different treatment settings (SP alone, combined SP-GP and GP alone) METHODS: Out of a group of known diabetics, 325 patients were selected according to a stratified cluster sampling technique, in such a way that the three types of diabetes (formerly called type 1, type 2a and type 2b) occurred sufficiently in the three above-defined treatment settings. Outcome data on co-morbidity and diabetes health profile as well as output data on laboratory results were collected for each patient and compared between the different subgroups. RESULTS: On the basis of a response rate of 47.9%, equally distributed over the different levels, we demonstrated that GPs and SPs score equally low on the different measures and that a better follow-up is indicated in all settings. CONCLUSION: Diabetes care in Flanders can be upgraded significantly. There is no evidence that specialists are performing better. Therefore, one could argue for better follow-up of diabetes care in a primary health care setting.