Conducting Digital Health Care Research: Document Analysis of Challenges Experienced During Intervention Development and Feasibility Study Setup of an Internet-Administered Intervention for Parents of Children Treated for Cancer

Overview

Journal JMIR Form Res

Publisher JMIR Publications

Specialty Biomedical Engineering

Date 2021 Aug 26

PMID 34433524

Citations 1

Authors

Joanne Woodford

Mathilda Karlsson

Josefin Hagstrom

Ylva Hagg Sylven

Kajsa Norback

Helena Gronqvist

Louise von Essen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The design and conduct of research to develop, test, and evaluate complex health care interventions is challenging. Although the existing literature describes key challenges associated with the design and conduct of definitive (evaluation) trials, there is a lack of information concerning specific challenges associated with the intervention development phase and setup of feasibility studies. In particular, the literature is scarce concerning the challenges associated with conducting digital health care research, such as research on internet-administered interventions and research using digital features to support the execution of study procedures (eg, recruitment, consent, retention, and data collection and management). This study is conducted in the context of the intervention development and feasibility study setup phases of an internet-administered, guided, low-intensity cognitive behavioral therapy-based intervention for parents of children previously treated for cancer.

Objective: The aim of this study is to explore the challenges experienced during the development phase of the internet-administered intervention and digital features to support the execution of the study procedures and a feasibility study setup.

Methods: To explore the key challenges experienced, we conducted a document analysis of written records from all study meetings held by the research team (meeting minutes) between June 7, 2018, and January 10, 2020, guided by a thematic analysis approach. Furthermore, discussion groups with members of the research team were held to develop a more detailed understanding of the key challenges experienced. Methods and results are reported in accordance with the relevant items from the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist.

Results: Six main themes were identified: decision-making and communication, expertise, external constraints, flexibility, planning and scheduling, and technical constraints.

Conclusions: Significant challenges were experienced during the intervention development and setup phases of the feasibility study. Implications are discussed to inform future design, conduct, and planning of internet-administered intervention development and feasibility studies, especially within the context of digital health care research.

Citing Articles

Internet-administered, low-intensity cognitive behavioral therapy for parents of children treated for cancer: A feasibility trial (ENGAGE).

Thiblin E, Woodford J, Reuther C, Lundgren J, Lutvica N, von Essen L Cancer Med. 2022; 12(5):6225-6243.

PMID: 36404407 PMC: 10028033. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.5377.

References

Sjomark J, Parling T, Jonsson M, Larsson M, Skoog Svanberg A . A longitudinal, multi-centre, superiority, randomized controlled trial of internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) versus treatment-as-usual (TAU) for negative experiences and posttraumatic stress following childbirth: the JUNO study.... BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018; 18(1):387. PMC: 6167807. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-018-1988-6. View

Igelstrom H, Hauffman A, Alfonsson S, Sjostrom J, Cajander A, Johansson B . User Experiences of an Internet-Based Stepped-Care Intervention for Individuals With Cancer and Concurrent Symptoms of Anxiety or Depression (the U-CARE AdultCan Trial): Qualitative Study. J Med Internet Res. 2020; 22(5):e16604. PMC: 7268002. DOI: 10.2196/16604. View

Patrick K, Hekler E, Estrin D, Mohr D, Riper H, Crane D . The Pace of Technologic Change: Implications for Digital Health Behavior Intervention Research. Am J Prev Med. 2016; 51(5):816-824. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.05.001. View

Patel V, Saxena S, Lund C, Thornicroft G, Baingana F, Bolton P . The Lancet Commission on global mental health and sustainable development. Lancet. 2018; 392(10157):1553-1598. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31612-X. View

Rondung E, Ternstrom E, Hildingsson I, Haines H, Sundin O, Ekdahl J . Comparing Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy With Standard Care for Women With Fear of Birth: Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Ment Health. 2018; 5(3):e10420. PMC: 6109226. DOI: 10.2196/10420. View

Norberg A, Montgomery S, Bottai M, Heyman M, Hoven E . Short-term and long-term effects of childhood cancer on income from employment and employment status: A national cohort study in Sweden. Cancer. 2016; 123(7):1238-1248. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30436. View

Carlsson T, Kukkola L, Ljungman L, Hoven E, von Essen L . Psychological distress in parents of children treated for cancer: An explorative study. PLoS One. 2019; 14(6):e0218860. PMC: 6588250. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218860. View

Ljungman L, Boger M, Ander M, Ljotsson B, Cernvall M, von Essen L . Impressions That Last: Particularly Negative and Positive Experiences Reported by Parents Five Years after the End of a Child's Successful Cancer Treatment or Death. PLoS One. 2016; 11(6):e0157076. PMC: 4896617. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157076. View

Bonsu J, Frasso R, Curry A . Lessons from the field: the conduct of randomized controlled trials in Botswana. Trials. 2017; 18(1):503. PMC: 5658937. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-017-2237-4. View

10.

Glasziou P, Altman D, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S . Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014; 383(9913):267-76. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X. View

11.

Wakefield C, McLoone J, Butow P, Lenthen K, Cohn R . Parental adjustment to the completion of their child's cancer treatment. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2011; 56(4):524-31. DOI: 10.1002/pbc.22725. View

12.

Goodarzynejad H, Babamahmoodi A . Project Management of Randomized Clinical Trials: A Narrative Review. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2015; 17(8):e11602. PMC: 4586955. DOI: 10.5812/ircmj.11602. View

13.

Yardley L, Choudhury T, Patrick K, Michie S . Current Issues and Future Directions for Research Into Digital Behavior Change Interventions. Am J Prev Med. 2016; 51(5):814-815. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.07.019. View

14.

Sjostrom J, von Essen L, Gronqvist H . The Origin and Impact of Ideals in eHealth Research: Experiences From the U-CARE Research Environment. JMIR Res Protoc. 2014; 3(2):e28. PMC: 4051743. DOI: 10.2196/resprot.3202. View

15.

Eagleson R, Altamirano-Diaz L, McInnis A, Welisch E, De Jesus S, Prapavessis H . Implementation of clinical research trials using web-based and mobile devices: challenges and solutions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017; 17(1):43. PMC: 5356263. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-017-0324-6. View

16.

Rosa C, Campbell A, Miele G, Brunner M, Winstanley E . Using e-technologies in clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015; 45(Pt A):41-54. PMC: 4648297. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.07.007. View

17.

Wakefield C, McLoone J, Butow P, Lenthen K, Cohn R . Support after the completion of cancer treatment: perspectives of Australian adolescents and their families. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2013; 22(4):530-9. DOI: 10.1111/ecc.12059. View

18.

Ellis E, Riegel B, Hamon M, Carlson B, Jimenez S, Parkington S . The challenges of conducting clinical research: one research team's experiences. Clin Nurse Spec. 2002; 15(6):286-92; quiz 293-4. DOI: 10.1097/00002800-200111000-00013. View

19.

Chalmers I, Bracken M, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gulmezoglu A . How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014; 383(9912):156-65. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1. View

20.

Thabane L, Lancaster G . A guide to the reporting of protocols of pilot and feasibility trials. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2019; 5:37. PMC: 6393983. DOI: 10.1186/s40814-019-0423-8. View