↓ Skip to main content

Process evaluation of TXT2BFiT: a multi-component mHealth randomised controlled trial to prevent weight gain in young adults

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
303 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Process evaluation of TXT2BFiT: a multi-component mHealth randomised controlled trial to prevent weight gain in young adults
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12966-016-0329-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie R. Partridge, Margaret Allman-Farinelli, Kevin McGeechan, Kate Balestracci, Annette T.Y. Wong, Lana Hebden, Mark F. Harris, Adrian Bauman, Philayrath Phongsavan

Abstract

TXT2BFiT was one of the first few innovative mHealth programs designed for young adults (18-35 years) with demonstrated efficacy in weight management. However, research is lacking to understand intervention effectiveness, especially in complex, multi-component mHealth programs. This paper investigates participant perceptions of and engagement with the mHealth program components in the TXT2BFiT to understand program effects. Process evaluation data were collected continuously for the study duration. The TXT2BFiT program was a multi-component lifestyle program delivered intensively for 3-month followed by a 6-month maintenance phase. Program components included personalised coaching calls, text messages, emails, smartphone apps and website access. Process evaluation measures included frequency of use of components and frequency for number of components used (online survey data); dose delivered and engagement with program components (researcher logs and web platform reports); frequency, timing and difficulties experienced with program components (online survey data) and overall perceptions of program components (online survey data and semi-structured telephone interviews). Qualitative data analysis was performed using NVivo10. Over 80 % of participants completed post-intervention (3-months, intervention, n = 110, control n = 104) and follow-up surveys (9-months, intervention, n = 96, control n = 104). Thirty intervention participants completed semi-structured telephone interviews. Participants reported high use of coaching calls, text messages and emails and no issues in content delivery from these components. These components were described as helping them to achieve their goals. Website and app use and engagement was low for the duration of the program. Participants would prefer incorporation of the self-monitoring apps and website resources into one smartphone application that can be individualised by entry of their personal data. Our process evaluation has allowed a comprehensive understanding of use and preference for different program components. The high value placed on the coaching calls is consistent with a desire for personalisation of the mHealth program and even further tailoring of text messages and emails. The findings of this study will be used to revise TXT2BFiT for future users. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12612000924853 ).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 303 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 295 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 16%
Student > Master 48 16%
Researcher 34 11%
Student > Bachelor 33 11%
Other 14 5%
Other 57 19%
Unknown 68 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 52 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 49 16%
Psychology 42 14%
Social Sciences 26 9%
Computer Science 14 5%
Other 44 15%
Unknown 76 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 October 2017.
All research outputs
#5,140,987
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#1,337
of 2,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,648
of 402,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#30
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,116 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.5. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 402,951 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.