在一项随机对照试验中为产妇百日咳疫苗接种提供在线定制决策辅助:过程评价研究。

IF 2 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Charlotte Anraad, Pepijn van Empelen, Robert Ac Ruiter, Hilde M van Keulen
{"title":"在一项随机对照试验中为产妇百日咳疫苗接种提供在线定制决策辅助:过程评价研究。","authors":"Charlotte Anraad, Pepijn van Empelen, Robert Ac Ruiter, Hilde M van Keulen","doi":"10.2196/50709","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To promote informed decision-making and maternal pertussis vaccination (MPV) uptake, we systematically developed an interactive, web-based decision aid for pregnant users. Intervention reach (the percentage of participants in the intervention group who used the intervention), use (how much and how long those participants used the intervention), and acceptability (how positively they evaluated the intervention) are essential for it to be effective and should be reported to assess which intervention components may have been effective.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This is a process evaluation aiming to evaluate (1) the reach and (2) the use, and (3) the acceptability of the intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed the reach and use of the intervention among participants in the intervention group of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that assessed the effects of an online tailored decision aid in the form of a web app. Participants were recruited via social media and midwifery clinics and invited via email to use the intervention at 18 weeks of pregnancy. Reach was measured objectively by assessing the number of participants who visited the intervention at least once. Use of the intervention was logged and included time spent on the decision aid, the number of times clicked, pages visited, and answers given in interactive components. Data from the baseline survey (at <18 wk of pregnancy) were used to measure sociodemographics, informed decision-making, MPV uptake, and determinants of uptake. A posttest survey (20-22 weeks of pregnancy) was used to evaluate the acceptability of the decision aid. We report the findings descriptively and assess baseline differences between those who used versus those who did not use the intervention.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 586 participants in the intervention group, 463 (79%) reached the home page of the intervention. Intervention reach appeared higher among those in their first pregnancy (8.35% difference, P=.11), those recruited via their midwife rather than via social media (10.56% difference, P=.04), and those who had completed a higher educational level (7.35% difference, P=.06). On average, participants spent 4.25 (SD 4.39) minutes on the decision aid. Most participants used the decision aid once (56.2% of those who reached it, n=260) or twice (26.6%, n=123). The average number of clicks was 27.24 (SD 25.08) and varied widely. Regarding acceptability, participants evaluated the decision aid positively with an overall grade of 8.0 out of 10 (SD 1.01). In total, 38.9% (180/463) of participants who used the intervention indicated that the decision aid helped them with their MPV decision-making.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The reach of the decision aid was successful with 79%, and participants were very positive about the decision aid. The use of the intervention (eg, time spent on the intervention) leaves room for improvement and should be improved to maximize intervention effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":14841,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Formative Research","volume":"9 ","pages":"e50709"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Online Tailored Decision Aid for Maternal Pertussis Vaccination in a Randomized Controlled Trial: Process Evaluation Study.\",\"authors\":\"Charlotte Anraad, Pepijn van Empelen, Robert Ac Ruiter, Hilde M van Keulen\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/50709\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To promote informed decision-making and maternal pertussis vaccination (MPV) uptake, we systematically developed an interactive, web-based decision aid for pregnant users. Intervention reach (the percentage of participants in the intervention group who used the intervention), use (how much and how long those participants used the intervention), and acceptability (how positively they evaluated the intervention) are essential for it to be effective and should be reported to assess which intervention components may have been effective.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This is a process evaluation aiming to evaluate (1) the reach and (2) the use, and (3) the acceptability of the intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed the reach and use of the intervention among participants in the intervention group of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that assessed the effects of an online tailored decision aid in the form of a web app. Participants were recruited via social media and midwifery clinics and invited via email to use the intervention at 18 weeks of pregnancy. Reach was measured objectively by assessing the number of participants who visited the intervention at least once. Use of the intervention was logged and included time spent on the decision aid, the number of times clicked, pages visited, and answers given in interactive components. Data from the baseline survey (at <18 wk of pregnancy) were used to measure sociodemographics, informed decision-making, MPV uptake, and determinants of uptake. A posttest survey (20-22 weeks of pregnancy) was used to evaluate the acceptability of the decision aid. We report the findings descriptively and assess baseline differences between those who used versus those who did not use the intervention.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 586 participants in the intervention group, 463 (79%) reached the home page of the intervention. Intervention reach appeared higher among those in their first pregnancy (8.35% difference, P=.11), those recruited via their midwife rather than via social media (10.56% difference, P=.04), and those who had completed a higher educational level (7.35% difference, P=.06). On average, participants spent 4.25 (SD 4.39) minutes on the decision aid. Most participants used the decision aid once (56.2% of those who reached it, n=260) or twice (26.6%, n=123). The average number of clicks was 27.24 (SD 25.08) and varied widely. Regarding acceptability, participants evaluated the decision aid positively with an overall grade of 8.0 out of 10 (SD 1.01). In total, 38.9% (180/463) of participants who used the intervention indicated that the decision aid helped them with their MPV decision-making.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The reach of the decision aid was successful with 79%, and participants were very positive about the decision aid. The use of the intervention (eg, time spent on the intervention) leaves room for improvement and should be improved to maximize intervention effects.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Formative Research\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"e50709\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Formative Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/50709\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Formative Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/50709","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:为了促进知情决策和母亲百日咳疫苗(MPV)的吸收,我们系统地开发了一个交互式的,基于网络的孕妇决策辅助工具。干预范围(干预组中使用干预措施的参与者的百分比),使用(参与者使用干预措施的数量和时间)和可接受性(他们对干预措施的评价有多积极)是有效的关键,应该报告以评估哪些干预措施可能是有效的。目的:这是一个过程评价,旨在评价(1)干预的范围和(2)使用,以及(3)干预的可接受性。方法:我们分析了随机对照试验(RCT)干预组参与者的干预范围和使用情况,该试验评估了网络应用程序形式的在线定制决策辅助的效果。参与者通过社交媒体和助产诊所招募,并通过电子邮件邀请他们在怀孕18周时使用干预措施。通过评估至少访问过一次干预的参与者的数量,客观地测量了Reach。对干预的使用进行了记录,包括在决策辅助上花费的时间、点击次数、访问的页面以及在交互式组件中给出的答案。基线调查数据(见结果):干预组的586名参与者中,有463名(79%)到达了干预的主页。第一次怀孕的妇女(8.35%差异,P=.11)、通过助产士而不是通过社交媒体招募的妇女(10.56%差异,P=.04)和完成了较高教育水平的妇女(7.35%差异,P=.06)的干预达到率更高。参与者在决策辅助上平均花费4.25分钟(SD 4.39)。大多数参与者使用决策辅助一次(56.2%,n=260)或两次(26.6%,n=123)。平均点击次数为27.24次(SD 25.08),差异很大。关于可接受性,参与者对决策辅助的总体评价为8.0分(SD 1.01)。总共有38.9%(180/463)使用干预的参与者表示决策辅助对他们的MPV决策有帮助。结论:决策辅助的到达率为79%,参与者对决策辅助的评价非常积极。干预措施的使用(例如,花在干预上的时间)还有改进的余地,应该加以改进,以使干预效果最大化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Online Tailored Decision Aid for Maternal Pertussis Vaccination in a Randomized Controlled Trial: Process Evaluation Study.

Background: To promote informed decision-making and maternal pertussis vaccination (MPV) uptake, we systematically developed an interactive, web-based decision aid for pregnant users. Intervention reach (the percentage of participants in the intervention group who used the intervention), use (how much and how long those participants used the intervention), and acceptability (how positively they evaluated the intervention) are essential for it to be effective and should be reported to assess which intervention components may have been effective.

Objective: This is a process evaluation aiming to evaluate (1) the reach and (2) the use, and (3) the acceptability of the intervention.

Methods: We analyzed the reach and use of the intervention among participants in the intervention group of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that assessed the effects of an online tailored decision aid in the form of a web app. Participants were recruited via social media and midwifery clinics and invited via email to use the intervention at 18 weeks of pregnancy. Reach was measured objectively by assessing the number of participants who visited the intervention at least once. Use of the intervention was logged and included time spent on the decision aid, the number of times clicked, pages visited, and answers given in interactive components. Data from the baseline survey (at <18 wk of pregnancy) were used to measure sociodemographics, informed decision-making, MPV uptake, and determinants of uptake. A posttest survey (20-22 weeks of pregnancy) was used to evaluate the acceptability of the decision aid. We report the findings descriptively and assess baseline differences between those who used versus those who did not use the intervention.

Results: Of the 586 participants in the intervention group, 463 (79%) reached the home page of the intervention. Intervention reach appeared higher among those in their first pregnancy (8.35% difference, P=.11), those recruited via their midwife rather than via social media (10.56% difference, P=.04), and those who had completed a higher educational level (7.35% difference, P=.06). On average, participants spent 4.25 (SD 4.39) minutes on the decision aid. Most participants used the decision aid once (56.2% of those who reached it, n=260) or twice (26.6%, n=123). The average number of clicks was 27.24 (SD 25.08) and varied widely. Regarding acceptability, participants evaluated the decision aid positively with an overall grade of 8.0 out of 10 (SD 1.01). In total, 38.9% (180/463) of participants who used the intervention indicated that the decision aid helped them with their MPV decision-making.

Conclusions: The reach of the decision aid was successful with 79%, and participants were very positive about the decision aid. The use of the intervention (eg, time spent on the intervention) leaves room for improvement and should be improved to maximize intervention effects.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JMIR Formative Research
JMIR Formative Research Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
579
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信