Comparison of Use and Appreciation of a Print-Delivered Versus CD-ROM-Delivered, Computer-Tailored Intervention Targeting Saturated Fat Intake: Randomized Controlled Trial
2008

Comparing Print and CD-ROM Health Interventions

Sample size: 292 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Eysenbach Gunther, DeBourdeaudhuij Ilse, Verheijden Marieke, Kroeze Willemieke, Oenema Anke, Campbell Marci, Brug Johannes

Primary Institution: Erasmus MC, University Medical Center

Hypothesis

Are there differences in use and appreciation between print and CD-ROM delivery of a computer-tailored intervention targeting saturated fat intake?

Conclusion

Print-delivered feedback was used more and perceived as more personally relevant than CD-ROM-delivered feedback.

Supporting Evidence

  • Print feedback was read more often than CD-ROM feedback (95% vs 81%).
  • Print feedback was saved more often than CD-ROM feedback (97% vs 77%).
  • Personal relevance of print feedback was rated higher than CD-ROM feedback (0.97 vs 0.68).
  • Similar results were found among gender, age, and education subgroups.

Takeaway

This study found that people liked reading printed health advice more than advice on a CD-ROM, especially women and older adults.

Methodology

Healthy Dutch adults were randomly assigned to receive a computer-tailored program on CD-ROM or in print, and their use and appreciation of the feedback were analyzed one month post-intervention.

Potential Biases

The study conducted multiple tests without correction for multiple testing, increasing the risk of false positives.

Limitations

The study may have missed important aspects of use and appreciation specific to interactive media, and less-educated individuals and those over 65 were underrepresented.

Participant Demographics

46% male, mean age 43.9 years, 22% lower education, 34.4% medium education, 43.6% higher education.

Statistical Information

P-Value

P = .001 for reading, P < .001 for saving, P = .04 for personal relevance.

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.2196/jmir.940

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication