Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2013 Mar 25;15(3):e69.
doi: 10.2196/jmir.2508.

The effect of program design on engagement with an internet-based smoking intervention: randomized factorial trial

Jennifer B McClure  1 , Susan M Shortreed, Andy Bogart, Holly Derry, Karin Riggs, Jackie St John, Vijay Nair, Larry An
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

The effect of program design on engagement with an internet-based smoking intervention: randomized factorial trial

Jennifer B McClure et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Participant engagement influences treatment effectiveness, but it is unknown which intervention design features increase treatment engagement for online smoking cessation programs.

Objective: We explored the effects of 4 design features (ie, factors) on early engagement with an Internet-based, motivational smoking cessation program.

Methods: Smokers (N=1865) were recruited from a large health care organization to participate in an online intervention study, regardless of their interest in quitting smoking. The program was intended to answer smokers' questions about quitting in an effort to motivate and support cessation. Consistent with the screening phase in the multiphase optimization strategy (MOST), we used a 2-level, full-factorial design. Each person was randomized to 1 of 2 levels of each factor, including message tone (prescriptive vs motivational), navigation autonomy (dictated vs not), proactive email reminders (yes vs no), and inclusion of personally tailored testimonials (yes vs no). The effects of each factor level on program engagement during the first 2 months of enrollment were compared, including number of visits to the website resulting in intervention content views (as opposed to supplemental content views), number of intervention content areas viewed, number of intervention content pages viewed, and duration of time spent viewing this content, as applicable to each factor.

Results: Adjusting for baseline readiness to quit, persons who received content written in a prescriptive tone made the same number of visits to the website as persons receiving content in a motivational tone, but viewed 1.17 times as many content areas (95% CI 1.08-1.28; P<.001) and 1.15 times as many pages (95% CI 1.04-1.28; P=.009). Time spent viewing materials did not differ among groups (P=.06). Persons required to view content in a dictated order based on their initial readiness to quit made the same number of visits as people able to freely navigate the site, but viewed fewer content areas (ratio of means 0.80, 95% CI 0.74-0.87; P<.001), 1.17 times as many pages (95% CI 1.06-1.31; P=.003), and spent 1.37 times more minutes online (95% CI 1.17-1.59; P<.001). Persons receiving proactive email reminders made 1.20 times as many visits (95% CI 1.09-1.33; P<.001), viewed a similar number of content areas as persons receiving no reminders, viewed 1.58 times as many pages (95% CI 1.48-1.68; P<.001), and spent 1.51 times as many minutes online (95% CI 1.29-1.77; P<.001) as those who did not receive proactive emails. Tailored testimonials did not significantly affect engagement.

Conclusions: Using a prescriptive message tone, dictating content viewing order, and sending reminder emails each resulted in greater program engagement relative to the contrasting level of each experimental factor. The results require replication, but suggest that a more directive interaction style may be preferable for online cessation programs.

Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT00992264; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00992264 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6F7H7lr3P).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Example screenshot of Questions about Quitting (Q2) layout.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Recruitment flow and allocation of participants.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Annual smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and economic costs--United States, 1995-1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2002 Apr 12;51(14):300–3. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5114a2.htm - PubMed
    1. Levy DT, Graham AL, Mabry PL, Abrams DB, Orleans CT. Modeling the impact of smoking-cessation treatment policies on quit rates. Am J Prev Med. 2010 Mar;38(3 Suppl):S364–72. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.11.016. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/20176309 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hutton HE, Wilson LM, Apelberg BJ, Tang EA, Odelola O, Bass EB, Chander G. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials: Web-based interventions for smoking cessation among adolescents, college students, and adults. Nicotine Tob Res. 2011 Apr;13(4):227–38. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntq252. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Civljak M, Sheikh A, Stead LF, Car J. Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(9):CD007078. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007078.pub3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Strecher VJ, McClure J, Alexander G, Chakraborty B, Nair V, Konkel J, Greene S, Couper M, Carlier C, Wiese C, Little R, Pomerleau C, Pomerleau O. The role of engagement in a tailored web-based smoking cessation program: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10(5):e36. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1002. http://www.jmir.org/2008/5/e36/ - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data