tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916610575947257275.post2950910785970358166..comments2012-03-25T22:25:53.596-07:00Comments on CATCH-IT Blog: Health Informatics Journal Club: Nov 16 - Effectiveness of Active-Online, an Individually Tailored Physical Activity Intervention, in a Real-Life Setting: Randomized Controlled TrialGunther Eysenbach MD MPHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03418681005679727986noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916610575947257275.post-53476270843263093472009-11-13T21:54:52.368-08:002009-11-13T21:54:52.368-08:00Interesting paper. Am a bit concerned with the tri...Interesting paper. Am a bit concerned with the trial registration taking place once the study had begun. I wonder if the study protocol for the purpose of receiving funding altered the actual study design in any way.<br /><br />Reading this paper also gave an impression that the participants were given too much autonomy. Do we consider this as positive or negative in terms of critical appraisal?ShamsaJiwanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12199963244805850772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916610575947257275.post-76110550804829984372009-11-13T19:56:34.613-08:002009-11-13T19:56:34.613-08:00To me the strength of the article was its randomiz...To me the strength of the article was its randomized longitudinal design with relatively large sample size. However, similar to other longitudinal studies this study also suffered from dropouts, which affected the study. Authors could have followed up with the participants in order to reduce the rate of the dropouts. <br /><br />The weaknesses of the study was also well explained in the article.Marjan Moeinedinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07709732766372054509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916610575947257275.post-44664129645629476852009-11-13T19:51:47.599-08:002009-11-13T19:51:47.599-08:00What was the reason for not measuring the usage of...What was the reason for not measuring the usage of the nontailored website in the control group? I think it would have been useful to know how many participants access the website as an indication of seeking information. Did this information have an impact? <br /><br />The author stated in the discussion that this a previous study showing used of a tailored intervention on CD-ROM in a controlled setting after 6 months and after 2 years was not effective when delivered online in a real-life setting. Also seems to be aware of the possibility of contamination bias. I am unclear as to why the author throught this would be any different based on a review of the actual website which has text base advice. <br /><br />Is it the 2 bicyles that are being raffled the impetus for interest? Another interesting study using incentives for participation.Plumaletta Berryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13332705347758344508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916610575947257275.post-56203654698136568312009-11-13T18:41:52.599-08:002009-11-13T18:41:52.599-08:00I am unsure how the data on the spontaneous group ...I am unsure how the data on the spontaneous group makes the results more credible, as James suggests. I am not sure why they even collected the data. <br />Given that study participants would likely have been a motivated group, is it possible that the control group could have accessed the intervention as spontaneous users? Could this potential contamination influence the result? <br />I did find it interesting that the paper reported negative results.Claudiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17838814260478407987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916610575947257275.post-68313076254366716002009-11-13T17:24:12.978-08:002009-11-13T17:24:12.978-08:00As previously mentioned, keeping the CG from acces...As previously mentioned, keeping the CG from accessing active online was an issue as "62 of 453 [CG] participants responding to FU3 stated that they had heard about Active-online and had used it at least once during the preceding year." How would one design a web-based study without this contamination bias?<br /><br />What accounted for the significant decrease in activity for the CG?Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15896221480828278549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916610575947257275.post-80712533913556020362009-11-13T16:44:31.972-08:002009-11-13T16:44:31.972-08:00Just couple of quick questions:
1. What were the “...Just couple of quick questions:<br />1. What were the “technical problems” for which the 38 participants were excluded from the study?<br />2. How did they validate uniqueness of the participants? Yes sure email addresses probably were considered as unique – but what if someone maintains multiple email addresses (like most of us)?<br />3. Finally, as Arun mentioned, how did they ensure that the control group were not already the members of Active-Online?Talat Ashrafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12497365195542262697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916610575947257275.post-35277075015885356842009-11-13T16:27:06.021-08:002009-11-13T16:27:06.021-08:00I would disagree with Laure. I actually found that...I would disagree with Laure. I actually found that the inclusion of the SU group made the results from the study more credible.<br /><br />I like how the final conclusion was that the intervention has no impact – most of the studies we read claim an impact (this could be publication bias).<br /><br />My question is more technical in nature (this study seemed to take a thorough methodological approach). In Figure 5, why was it that in all groups, the amount of minutes/week for those meeting HEPA recommendations at baseline decreased? They mention it in the paper <br /><br />“When including only those participants who did not meet the HEPA recommendations at baseline, total reported activity time increased significantly in all groups. The increases observed in these insufficiently active individuals exceeded the increase observed in all participants; thus, a decrease in total reported activity time was found in those individuals meeting the HEPA recommendations at baseline. The decrease was significant in the CG.” <br /><br />Though I am still confused.<br /><br />A more general question (perhaps Gunther can address in class) is what is the best method to recruit individuals for an online study? There does not seem to be a general consensus or gold standard.James Mullenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305176966301991699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916610575947257275.post-8884654854256261022009-11-13T12:58:53.276-08:002009-11-13T12:58:53.276-08:00Interesting paper but I wondered if the authors co...Interesting paper but I wondered if the authors considered that their study design could not ensure that the control group was not contaminated by the intervention. This could occur in three manners; the first is the scenario where controls could have access to the website. The second could be that controls and intervention participants could be in the same home or friends and could influence each other. The third could be that the information from the site may already be available been available to everyone (online or advertising or public health promotion programs).Arunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06713860866871185156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916610575947257275.post-34512322334946667712009-11-13T12:54:18.346-08:002009-11-13T12:54:18.346-08:00It's kind of disappointing that the study samp...It's kind of disappointing that the study sample already had high levels of physical activity. It then makes it seems kind of a foregone conclusion that there would be no significant change in activity levels. Had there been a population with low-levels, or even a mix, there may have been a different result.dbeemsignehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00582891696953315642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916610575947257275.post-79463971419233750472009-11-13T05:15:51.531-08:002009-11-13T05:15:51.531-08:00In the Discussion, the authors state that the Spon...In the Discussion, the authors state that the Spontaneous Users could not be directly compared to the randomized groups. My question would be, what was the purpose of including the Spontaneous Users in the paper? <br /><br />I liked many aspects of the study, such as the multiple follow up times and length of follow up, etc. but found tracking the Spontaneous Users took away from the focus and clarity of the paper.Laurehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10487393394828253854noreply@blogger.com