Study: Little patient enthusiasm for web-based health improvement tools
 |
| Henry J. Feldman, MD, a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, describes imaging as the “killer app” for the iPad. Switching back and forth between “Netter’s Atlas of Human Anatomy” and actual patient images helps patients make sense of complex images. |
“When this project was in development, we implicitly assumed, as did consultants and reviewers, that study participants would embrace the use of the web intervention as an easily accessible, highly engaging communication channel,” wrote lead author Linda Fleisher, MPH, PhD, of the Cheltenham, Pa.-based Fox Chase Cancer Center, along with her co-authors. “However, results to date indicate surprisingly modest use of the web intervention, raising important questions about the use [and] effectiveness...of this type of health communication tool.”
Researchers conducted a randomized controlled trial in which study subjects were split into three groups with one receiving an intervention via print material, one receiving an intervention via web and one acting as a control group. The interventions were were tracked and intended to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by providing educational material to a population of women at average risk of CRC who were noncompliant with screening recommendations.
Between June 2006 and August 2009, 391 women both enrolled in the study and completed a four-month follow-up survey after enrolling. Of the 391, 170 were assigned to the web-arm of the study and of that 170, 130 were included in the final analysis.
Out of the 130 participants included in the final analysis who received the web-based intervention, only 25 percent actually logged into the informational website and only 19 percent of those that logged in returned for a second time. Younger participants were more likely to use the website, but even among younger participants, only 30 percent visited the website.
Additionally, 40 percent reported that they used the website when they had not and 20 percent reported that they had not used the website when they had.
Out of the 171 participants included in the final analysis who received the print material intervention, 25 percent reported that they did not look at the materials, 42 percent reported that they looked once and more than 30 percent reported that they looked at least twice.
Based on their findings, researchers suggested that resources be directed away from the development of new technology-based interventions toward programs designed to understand how the internet can be used to engage patients.
“Typically, at-home web use is voluntary and unsupervised and health promotion rather than disease treatment and management may be less compelling,” researchers concluded. “Emerging technology provides a fertile ground for growth, but also presents new challenges. More research is needed to explore innovative ways to integrate health messages in other types of venues, such as social networking sites.”
Read the report in its entirety here.