Background: Promoting health behaviors and preventing chronic diseases through a healthy lifestyle among those with a low socioeconomic status (SES) remain major challenges. eHealth interventions... Show moreBackground: Promoting health behaviors and preventing chronic diseases through a healthy lifestyle among those with a low socioeconomic status (SES) remain major challenges. eHealth interventions are a promising approach to change unhealthy behaviors in this target group.Objective: This review aims to identify key components, barriers, and facilitators in the development, reach, use, evaluation, and implementation of eHealth lifestyle interventions for people with a low SES. This review provides an overview for researchers and eHealth developers, and can assist in the development of eHealth interventions for people with a low SES.Methods: We performed a scoping review based on Arksey and O'Malley's framework. A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, using terms related to a combination of the following key constructs: eHealth, lifestyle, low SES, development, reach, use, evaluation, and implementation. There were no restrictions on the date of publication for articles retrieved upon searching the databases.Results: The search identified 1323 studies, of which 42 met our inclusion criteria. An update of the search led to the inclusion of 17 additional studies. eHealth lifestyle interventions for people with a low SES were often delivered via internet-based methods (eg, websites, email, Facebook, and smartphone apps) and offline methods, such as texting. A minority of the interventions combined eHealth lifestyle interventions with face-to-face or telephone coaching, or wearables (blended care). We identified the use of different behavioral components (eg, social support) and technological components (eg, multimedia) in eHealth lifestyle interventions. Facilitators in the development included iterative design, working with different disciplines, and resonating intervention content with users. Facilitators for intervention reach were use of a personal approach and social network, reminders, and self-monitoring. Nevertheless, barriers, such as technological challenges for developers and limited financial resources, may hinder intervention development. Furthermore, passive recruitment was a barrier to intervention reach. Technical difficulties and the use of self-monitoring devices were common barriers for users of eHealth interventions. Only limited data on barriers and facilitators for intervention implementation and evaluation were available.Conclusions: While we found large variations among studies regarding key intervention components, and barriers and facilitators, certain factors may be beneficial in building and using eHealth interventions and reaching people with a low SES. Barriers and facilitators offer promising elements that eHealth developers can use as a toolbox to connect eHealth with low SES individuals. Our findings suggest that one-size-fits-all eHealth interventions may be less suitable for people with a low SES. Future research should investigate how to customize eHealth lifestyle interventions to meet the needs of different low SES groups, and should identify the components that enhance their reach, use, and effectiveness. Show less
Al-Dhahir, I.; Breeman, L.D.; Faber, J.S.; Reijnders, T.; Berg-emons, R.J.G. van den; Vaart, R. van der; ... ; Med Delta Program eHlth 2023
Objective: eHealth interventions can improve the health outcomes of people with a low socioeconomic position (SEP) by promoting healthy lifestyle behaviours. However, developing and implementing... Show moreObjective: eHealth interventions can improve the health outcomes of people with a low socioeconomic position (SEP) by promoting healthy lifestyle behaviours. However, developing and implementing these interventions among the target group can be challenging for professionals. To facilitate the uptake of effective interventions, this study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators anticipated or experienced by professionals in the development, reach, adherence, implementation and evaluation phases of eHealth interventions for people with a low SEP.Method: We used a Delphi method, consisting of two online questionnaires, to determine the consensus on barriers and facilitators anticipated or experienced during eHealth intervention phases and their importance. Participants provided open-ended responses in the first round and rated statements in the second round. The interquartile range was used to calculate consensus, and the (totally) agree ratings were used to assess importance. Results: Twenty-seven professionals participated in the first round, and 19 (70.4%) completed the second round. We found a consensus for 34.8% of the 46 items related to highly important rated barriers, such as the lack of involvement of low-SEP people in the development phase, lack of knowledge among professionals about reaching the target group, and lack of knowledge among lower-SEP groups about using eHealth interventions. Additionally, we identified a consensus for 80% of the 60 items related to highly important rated facilitators, such as rewarding people with a low SEP for their involvement in the development phase and connecting eHealth interventions to the everyday lives of lower-SEP groups to enhance reach.Conclusion: Our study provides valuable insights into the barriers and facilitators of developing eHealth interventions for people with a low SEP by examining current practices and offering recommendations for future improvements. Strengthening facilitators can help overcome these barriers. To achieve this, we recommend defining the roles of professionals and lower-SEP groups in each phase of eHealth intervention and disseminating this study's findings to professionals to optimize the impact of eHealth interventions for this group. Show less
Al-Dhahir, I.; Reijnders, T.R.; Faber, J.S.; van den Berg-Emons; R.J.; Janssen, V.R.; ... ; Evers, A.W.M. 2022
Nocebo effects, i.e. reduced treatment effects due to patients’ negative expectations, play a role in itch. Recent studies have shown that nocebo effects can be induced experimentally on itch and... Show moreNocebo effects, i.e. reduced treatment effects due to patients’ negative expectations, play a role in itch. Recent studies have shown that nocebo effects can be induced experimentally on itch and also be minimized and even turned into the opposite direction, i.e. placebo effects. It is not known whether these effects generalize to itch-associated scratching behaviour. The aim of this study was to determine whether induction and reversal of nocebo effects on itch evoked by electrical and histamine stimuli generalized to scratching. Ninety-seven healthy participants were included in the study. The manipulation was successful, as during the nocebo learning phase, increased scratching responses were found for higher intensity compared with lower intensity itch stimuli. During the testing phase of induction or reversal of the nocebo effects, however, no significant nocebo effects or reversed nocebo effects, were found in scratching. Thus, no straightforward generalization of nocebo effects from itch to scratching was found in this laboratory setting. Further investigation into possible generalization is needed in different settings and in patients with chronic itch. Show less
