”As for organizations that might develop aids that integrate the work of many studies, see, for example, Healthwise, Emmi Solutions, Health Dialog, as well as the Option Grid collaborative.”
Abstract: Web-based tailored intervention programs show considerable promise in effecting health-promoting behaviors and improving health outcomes across a variety of medical conditions and patient populations. This meta-analysis compares the effects of tailored versus nontailored web-based interventions on health behaviors and explores the influence of key moderators on treatment outcomes. Forty experimental and quasi-experimental studies (N =20,180) met criteria for inclusion and were analyzed using meta-analytic procedures. The findings indicated that web-based tailored interventions effected significantly greater improvement in health outcomes as compared with control conditions both at posttesting, d =.139 (95% CI = .111, .166, p <.001, k =40) and at follow-up, d =.158 (95% CI = .124, .192, p <.001, k =21). The authors found no evidence of publication bias. These results provided further support for the differential benefits of tailored web-based interventions over nontailored approaches. Analysis of participant/descriptive, intervention, and methodological moderators shed some light on factors that may be important to the success of tailored interventions. Implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.
Objectives. We have described the practice of designing for dissemination among researchers in the United States with the intent of identifying gaps and areas for improvement.
Methods. In 2012, we conducted a cross-sectional study of 266 researchers using a search of the top 12 public health journals in PubMed and lists available from government-sponsored research. The sample involved scientists at universities, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States.
Results. In the pooled sample, 73% of respondents estimated they spent less than 10% of their time on dissemination. About half of respondents (53%) had a person or team in their unit dedicated to dissemination. Seventeen percent of all respondents used a framework or theory to plan their dissemination activities. One third of respondents (34%) always or usually involved stakeholders in the research process.
Conclusions. The current data and the existing literature suggest considerable room for improvement in designing for dissemination.
A message to all physicians from AMA President Ardis Dee Hoven, MD, on the era that is ending with the decision to stop publishing AMNews.
This is cool!
Commenting on a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Daniel Reuland and Michael Pignone wrote…
Updated 08.06.2013 The sequester has been hurting communities and families throughout the nation. Because of the sequester, more than 650,000 workers in the defense industry will face a 20 percent pay cut for the rest of the summer. These cuts are a significant financial hit to any household. Meanwhile, children are being kicked off their […]