Relevance of CONSORT reporting criteria for research on eHealth interventions

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 81, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2010, Pages

  Baker, Timothy B ^a   Gustafson, David H ^b   Shaw, Bret ^c   Hawkins, Robert ^c   Pingree, Suzy ^c   Roberts, Linda ^c   Strecher, Victor ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b University of Wisconsin Madison   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Consort; EHealth; Experimental methods; Randomized clinical trials; Research reporting standards

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE OUTCOME; ARTICLE; EVALUATION RESEARCH; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERVENTION STUDY; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; MEDICAL RESEARCH; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; STRATEGIC PLANNING;

AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 78649631987     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.07.040     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Altman D.G., Schulz K.F., Moher D., et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001, 134:663-694.
2. Begg C., Cho M., Eastwood S., et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. J Amer Med Assoc 1996, 276:637-639.
3. Demographics of internet users. Available at: ; 2008 [accessed 21.07.09]. http://www.pewinternet.org/Static-Pages/Trend-Data/Whos-Online.aspx.
4. Danaher B.G., Seeley J.R. Methodological issues in research on web-based behavioral interventions. Ann Behav Med 2009, 38:28-39.
5. Griesam N., Meyer C., Haug S., et al. Diversity and accessibility of smoking cessation aids in the internet. Gesundheitswesen 2008, 70:372-376.
6. Klemm P., Bunnell D., Cullen M., Soneji R., Gibbons P., Holecek A. Online cancer support groups: a review of the research literature. Comput Inform Nurs 2003, 21:136-142.
7. Kreps G.L., Neuhauser L. New directions in eHealth communication: opportunities and challenges. Patient Educ Couns 2010, 78:329-336.
8. Norman G.J., Zabinski M.F., Adams M.A., Rosenberg D.E., Yaroch A.L., Atienza A.A. A review of eHealth interventions for physical activity and dietary behavior change. Am J Prev Med 2007, 33:336-345.
9. Strecher V. Interactive health communications for cancer prevention and control. Handbook of cancer control and behavioral science: a resource for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers 2009, 547-558. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. S.M. Miller, D.J. Bowen, R.T. Croyle, J.H. Rowland (Eds.).
10. Murray E., Burns J., See T.S., Lai R., Nazareth I. Interactive health communication applications for people with chronic disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005, CD004274.
11. Strecher V. Internet methods for delivering behavioral and health-related interventions (eHealth). Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2007, 3:53-76.
12. Hesse B.W., Moser R.P., Rutten L.J., Kreps G.L. The health information national trends survey: research from the baseline. J Health Commun 2006, 11:vii-xvi.
13. Kane R.L., Wang J., Garrard J. Reporting in randomized clinical trials improved after adoption of the CONSORT statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2007, 60:241-249.
14. Moher D., Schulz K.F., Altman D.G. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2001, 134:657-662.
15. Coyne J.C., Lepore S.J., Palmer S.C. Efficacy of psychosocial interventions in cancer care: evidence is weaker than it first looks. Ann Behav Med 2006, 32:104-110.
16. Elliott T.R. Registering randomized clinical trials and the case for CONSORT. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 2007, 15:511-518.
17. Schulz K.F., Altman D.G., Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2010, 152:726-732.
18. Moher D., Hopewell S., Schulz K.F., et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Brit Med J 2010, 340:c869.
19. Gustafson D.H., Hawkins R., McTavish F., et al. Internet-based interactive support for cancer patients: are integrated systems better?. J Commun 2008, 58:238-257.
20. Gustafson D.H., Hawkins R.P., Boberg E.W., et al. CHESS: 10 years of research and development in consumer health informatics for broad populations, including the underserved. Int J Med Inform 2002, 65:169-177.
21. Miller G.A., Chapman J.P. Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. J Abnorm Psychol 2001, 110:40-48.
22. Newman M.G., Kenardy J., Herman S., Taylor C.B. Comparison of palmtop-computer-assisted brief cognitive-behavioral treatment to cognitive-behavioral treatment for panic disorder. J Consult Clin Psychol 1997, 65:178-183.
23. White J., Jones R., McGarry E. Cognitive behavioral computer therapy for anxiety disorders: a pilot study. J Ment Health 2000, 9:505-516.
24. Glasgow R.E., Nelson C.C., Kearney K.A., et al. Reach, engagement, and retention in an internet-based weight loss program in a multi-site randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2007, 9:e11.
25. Thompson D., Baranowski T., Cullen K., et al. Food, fun, and fitness internet program for girls: pilot evaluation of an e-Health youth obesity prevention program examining predictors of obesity. Prev Med 2008, 47:494-497.
26. Hesse B.W., Arora N.K., Burke Beckjord E., Finney Rutten L.J. Information support for cancer survivors. Cancer 2008, 112:2529-2540.
27. Shaw B.R., Gustafson D.H., Hawkins R., et al. How underserved breast cancer patients use and benefit from eHealth programs: implications for closing the digital divide. Am Behav Sci 2006, 49:1-12.
28. Cook D.A. Learning and cognitive styles in web-based learning: theory, evidence, and application. Acad Med 2005, 80:266-278.
29. Experts vs. online consumers: a comparative credibility study of health and finance Web sites. Available at: ; 2002 [accessed 21.07.09]. http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/pdfs/expert-vsonline-consumers.pdf.
30. Alur P., Fatima K., Joseph R. Medical teaching websites: do they reflect the learning paradigm?. Med Teach 2002, 24:422-424.
31. Merrill M.D. Instructional strategies and learning styles: which takes precedence?. Trends and issues in instructional design and technology 2002, 99-106. Prentice Hall, Columbus, OH. R. Reiser, J. Dempsey (Eds.).
32. Cook D.A., Dupras D.M. A practical guide to developing effective web-based learning. J Gen Intern Med 2004, 19:698-707.
33. Shaw B.R., Han J.Y., Baker T., et al. How women with breast cancer learn using interactive cancer communication systems. Health Educ Res 2007, 22:108-119.
34. Davidson K.W., Goldstein M., Kaplan R.M., et al. Evidence-based behavioral medicine: what is it and how do we achieve it?. Ann Behav Med 2003, 26:161-171.
35. Gustafson D.H., Hawkins R., Pingree S., et al. Effect of computer support on younger women with breast cancer. J Gen Intern Med 2001, 16:435-445.
36. Hosmer D.W., Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression 2000, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 2nd ed.
37. Han J.Y., Hawkins R.P., Shaw B., Pingree S., McTavish F., Gustafson D.H. Unraveling uses and effects of an interactive health communication system. J Broadcast Electron Media 2009, 53:112-133.
38. Hall S.M., Delucchi K.L., Velicer W.F., et al. Statistical analysis of randomized trials in tobacco treatment: longitudinal designs with dichotomous outcome. Nicotine Tob Res 2001, 3:193-202.
39. Oka R.K., Katapodi M.C., Lim J.W., Bacchetti P., Froelicher E.S. Quantifying smoking cessation outcomes: from the women's initiative for nonsmoking study (X): methodological implications. Nurs Res 2006, 55:292-297.
40. Glasgow R.E., Mullooly J.P., Vogt T.M., et al. Biochemical validation of smoking status: pros, cons, and data from four low-intensity intervention trials. Addict Behav 1993, 18:511-527.
41. Allison P.D. Missing data techniques for structural equation modeling. J Abnorm Psychol 2003, 112:545-557.
42. Crocco A.G., Villasis-Keever M., Jadad A.R. Analysis of cases of harm associated with use of health information on the internet. J Amer Med Assoc 2002, 287:2869-2871.
43. Meric F., Bernstam E.V., Mirza N.Q., et al. Breast cancer on the world wide web: cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websites. Brit Med J 2002, 324:577-581.
44. Rosen C.S., Henson B.R., Finney J.W., Moos R.H. Consistency of self-administered and interview-based addiction severity index composite scores. Addiction 2000, 95:419-425.
45. Mathy R.M., Kerr R.L., Haydin B.M. Methodological rigor and ethical consideration in internet-mediated research. Psychother Theory Res Pract Train 2003, 40:77-85.
46. Glasgow R.E., Lichtenstein E., Marcus A.C. Why don't we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. Am J Public Health 2003, 93:1261-1267.
47. Kraut R., Kiesler S., Mukhopadhyay T., Scherlis W., Patterson M. Social impact of the internet: what does it mean?. Commun ACM 1998, 41:21-22.
48. Kraut R., Kiesler S., Boneva B., Cummings J., Helgeson V., Crawford A. Internet paradox revisited. J Soc Issues 2002, 58:49-74.
49. Glasgow R.E., Vogt T.M., Boles S.M. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health 1999, 89:1322-1327.