12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Exploring Participants’ Experiences of a Web-Based Program for Bulimia and Binge Eating Disorder: Qualitative Study

      research-article
      , BSc 1 , , , BSc, MSc 1 , , BA, MSc 1 , , BSc, MSc, PhD, DClinPsy 2 , , PhD 1 , , FRCPsych, PhD, MD 1 , 2
      (Reviewer), (Reviewer), (Reviewer)
      Journal of Medical Internet Research
      JMIR Publications
      eHealth, self-help, eating disorders, bulimia, binge eating disorder, internet-based intervention, qualitative research

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Guided cognitive behavioral self-help is a recommended first-line treatment for eating disorders (EDs) such as bulimia nervosa (BN) or binge eating disorder (BED). Online versions of such self-help programs are increasingly being studied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with some evidence that they can reduce ED symptoms, although intervention dropout is variable across interventions. However, in-depth research into participants’ experiences and views on the acceptability of web-based interventions is limited.

          Objective

          This is a qualitative process study of participants’ experiences of everyBody Plus, a web-based cognitive behavioral intervention, integrated into a large RCT to aid the interpretation of the main trial’s results. To our knowledge, this is the first such study in digital intervention for EDs research to include real-time feedback into the qualitative analysis. This study aims to build upon the emerging literature by qualitatively exploring participants’ experiences of a web-based intervention for BN and BED.

          Methods

          Participants were those who took part in the UK arm of a larger RCT investigating the efficacy of the everyBody Plus intervention. Reflexive thematic analysis was completed on 2 sources of data from the online platform: real-time feedback quotes provided at the end of completing a module on the platform (N=104) and semistructured telephone interview transcripts (n=12).

          Results

          Four main themes were identified. The first theme identified positive and negative user experiences, with a desire for a more customized and personalized intervention. Another theme positively reflected on how flexible and easy the intervention was to embed into daily life, compared with the silo of face-to-face therapy. The third theme identified how the intervention had a holistic impact cognitively, emotionally, interpersonally, and behaviorally. The final theme was related to how the intervention was not a one size fits all and how the perceived usefulness and relevance were often dependent on participants’ demographic and clinical characteristics.

          Conclusions

          Overall, participants reported positive experiences with the use of the everyBody Plus web-based intervention, including flexibility of use and the potential to holistically impact people’s lives. The participants also provided valuable suggestions for how similar future web-based interventions could be improved and, in the context of EDs, how programs can be designed to be more inclusive of people by encompassing different demographic and clinical characteristics.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

          Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Med Internet Res
                J Med Internet Res
                JMIR
                Journal of Medical Internet Research
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                1439-4456
                1438-8871
                September 2020
                23 September 2020
                : 22
                : 9
                : e17880
                Affiliations
                [1 ] King's College London London United Kingdom
                [2 ] South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust London United Kingdom
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: See Heng Yim see.yim@ 123456hmc.ox.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2241-1017
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1194-3058
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3888-0202
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8523-5276
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7439-0441
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1335-1937
                Article
                v22i9e17880
                10.2196/17880
                7542406
                32965235
                ae50f178-6406-4b3c-a67f-0e00dcb21fb5
                ©See Heng Yim, Emma Bailey, Gemma Gordon, Nina Grant, Peter Musiat, Ulrike Schmidt. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 23.09.2020.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 18 January 2020
                : 16 March 2020
                : 26 June 2020
                : 19 July 2020
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                Medicine
                ehealth,self-help,eating disorders,bulimia,binge eating disorder,internet-based intervention,qualitative research

                Comments

                Comment on this article