Skip to main content
. 2010 Jun 28;12(2):e24. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1409

Table 2.

Objectives of behavior change, theories, intervention designs, and statistically significant outcomes of the tailored intervention groups compared with control groups

Study Authors
and Year of
Publication
(n = 23)		 Objectives
of Behavior
Change		 Theories or
Theoretical
Concepts
Mentioned		 Intervention and Control Groups Use of the
Computer for
Delivering
Tailored
Health
Information		 Statistically Significant Outcomes in Favor
of Tailored Intervention Group Compared
With Control Groupa
 
Block et al, 2004 [53] Nutrition Transtheoretical Model or Stages of Change (TTM/SC)

  1. Tailored fruit and vegetable consumption information

  2. Tailored fat information

 Email Change in fruit and vegetable consumption (all evaluation respondents)d
+0.73 times/day ***
Change in consumption of fat sources (all evaluation respondents)d
-0.39 times/day ***
Change in stage of change for fruit and vegetable consumption (all evaluation respondents)d***
Change in stage of change for fat (all evaluation respondents)d***
de Vet et al, 2008 [68]b Nutrition TTM/SC

  1. Tailored precontemplation feedback

  2. Tailored contemplation feedback

  3. Tailored action feedback

 Feedback-letter -
Di Noia et al, 2008 [61] Nutrition TTM/SC, Concept of Self-efficacy (SE)

  1. Tailored intervention

  2. General intervention

 CD-ROM Change in fruit and vegetable consumption was 38% higher for 1. vs 2., F1,501 = 26.62***

Change in pro (rather than con) phase of changed
F1,501 = 5.08 *
Irvine et al, 2004 [57] Nutrition TTM/SC, SE, Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)

  1. Tailored intervention

  2. Waiting list control

 Internet program Change in fat consumption
+0.24 vs +0.19 summary score points
t = 8.44 **

Change in fruit and vegetable consumption
+0.36 vs +0.24 summary score points
t = 6.49 ***

Change in stage of change to adopt a low fat diet
+0.55 vs +0.50 summary score points
t = 7.57 ***

Change in self-efficacy to decrease fat
t = 3.87 ***
Kroeze et al, 2008 [21]c Nutrition TTM/SC

  1. Tailored CD-ROM-delivered intervention

  2. Tailored print-delivered intervention

  3. General intervention

 CD-ROM 1. vs 3. at 1 month

Total fat intaked
87.9(35.1) vs 104.2(44.1) g
b = -10.93 *

Saturated fat intaked
32.8(15.2) vs 37.1(16.9) g
b = -3.15 *
Energy intaked
9.1(3.0) vs 10.7(3.4) megajoules
b = -1.07 *
Luszczynska et al, 2007 [58] Nutrition SE

  1. Tailored SE group

  2. Tailored SE + action planning group

  3. General intervention

 Email Change in fruit and vegetable consumptiond
F2,198 = 6.81, η² = 0.07 ***
Oenema et al, 2001 [23] Nutrition SE, Precaution Adoption Model (PAPM)

  1. Tailored intervention

  2. General intervention

 Internet program Change in awarenessd
t193 = 3.82 ***

Change in intention to change dietd
t195 = 3.35 ***
Oenema et al, 2005 [15]c Nutrition PAPM, Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)

  1. Tailored intervention

  2. General intervention

  3. No-information control

 CD-ROM Change in self-rated fat intake
1. vs 2.
-0.13 vs +0.06 score points
β = -0.10 *
1. vs 3.
-0.13 vs +0.07 score points
β = -0.10 **
Change in self-rated vegetables intake

1. vs 2.
-0.19 vs -0.07 score points
β = 0.14 **
1. vs 3.
-0.19 vs -0.05 score points
β = 0.13 **

Change in vegetable intake
1.vs 2.
+0.1 vs -0.1 servings
β = .08 *
Change in intention to change (fat)
1. vs 2.
+0.24 vs 0.00 score points
β = -0.09 *
1. vs 3.
+0.24 vs -0.03 score points
β = -0.12 *

Change in intention to change (vegetables)
1. vs 2.
+0.34 vs +0.07 score points
β = -0.13 *
1. vs 3.
+0.34 vs +0.05 score points
β = -0.14 **
Papadaki and Scott, 2008 [62] Nutrition -

  1. Tailored intervention

  2. General intervention

 Email, Internet site Change in vegetable intake
+76.5 vs +27.7 g/d *

Change in HDL (high-density lipoprotein) cholesterol
+0.27 vs +0.07 mmol/l **

Change in ratio of total:HDL cholesterol
-0.47 vs -0.14 *
Park et al, 2008 [63]b Nutrition TTM/SC, SE

  1. Tailored intervention

  2. General intervention

 Internet program -
Dunton and Robertson, 2008 [54] Physical activity TTM/SC

  1. Tailored intervention

  2. Waiting list control

 Email, Internet site
 Change in walking
+69 vs +32 min/week
β = 15.04(SE = 8.35) *
Change in moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity
+23 vs -25 min/week
β = 17.02 (SE = 10.11) *
Hageman et al, 2005 [56]c Physical activity SE, Health Promotion Model (HPM)

  1. Tailored intervention

  2. General intervention

 Newsletters Change in cardiovascular fitness: VO² maxd
F1,26 = 4.37 *

Change in body fat %d
F1,28 = 6.46 *
Marcus et al, 2007 [59]b Physical activity -

  1. Tailored Internet-delivered interventions

  2. Tailored print-delivered intervention

  3. General intervention

 Internet site -
Napolitano et al, 2003 [60] Physical activity TTM/SC

  1. Tailored intervention

  2. Waiting list control

 Email, Internet site Change in moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity at 1 month
+29.5 vs +15.96 min/week
F1,54 = 5.79 *
Change in walking
at 1 month
+30.05 vs -3.78 min/week
F1,54 = 12.1 ***
at 3 months
+12.46 vs -15.4 min/week
F1,48 = 5.2 *
Spittaels et al, 2007 [65]b Physical activity TTM/SC, Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

  1. Tailored advice + e-mails

  2. Tailored advice

  3. General advice

 Email, Internet site -
Spittaels et al, 2007 [72] Physical activity TTM/SC
SE

  1. Tailored advice + nontailored emails

  2. Tailored advice

  3. Waiting list control

 Internet site 1. vs 2. vs 3.

Change in active transportation
20 vs +24 vs +11 min/week
F = 5.25 **

Change in leisure-time physical activity
+26 vs +19 vs -4 min/week
F = 3.14 *

Change in weekday sitting time
-22 vs -34 vs +4 min/week
F = 3.71 *
Wanner et al, 2009 [70]b Physical activity TTM/SC
SE

  1. Tailored intervention

  2. General intervention

  3. Spontaneous users group

 Email, Internet program -
Frenn et al, 2005 [55] Nutrition and physical activity TTM/SC
SE

  1. Tailored intervention

  2. No-information control

 Email, Internet site Change in moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity
+22 vs -46 min
t103 = -1.99 *

Change in dietary fat %
-0.8 vs +0.1 g
t87 = 2.73 **
Oenema et al, 2008 [71] Nutrition and physical activity TTM/SC
SE
PAPM

  1. Tailored intervention

  2. Waiting list control

 Internet site Change in saturated fat intake
-1.61 vs -0.9 fat points
b = -0.76 **

Change in likelihood of meeting physical activity guidelines in the “at risk” group (low physical activity at baseline)
+2.53 vs -0.45%
odds ratio = 1.34, 95% confidence interval = 1.001-1.80 *
Booth et al, 2008 [22]b Weight management TTM/SC, Goal Setting Theory, (GST)

  1. Tailored advice + exercise

  2. Exercise only

 Email, Internet site -
Rothert et al, 2006 [64] Weight management SE

  1. Tailored intervention

  2. General intervention

 Internet program Weight loss %
3(0.3) vs 1.2(0.4)% ***
Tate et al, 2001 [67]c Weight management -

  1. Tailored intervention

  2. General intervention

 Email Weight loss
4.1(4.5) vs 1.6(3.3) kg
t = 2.1 *
Change in waist circumference
6.4(5.5) vs 3.1(4.4)cm **
Tate et al, 2006 [66]c Weight management -

  1. Computer-automated tailored counseling

  2. Human email counseling

  3. No counseling

 Email, Internet program 1. vs 3.
Weight loss at 3 months
5.3(4.2) vs -2.8(3.5) kg ***

Change in fat intake % at 6 months
37.3(6.6) vs 33.1(4.9) % **

a Statistical values presented are: mean (SD) (unless otherwise stated), F (F test, analysis of variance), t (t test), b (unstandardized regression coefficient), β (standardized regression coefficient), and η² (eta-squared, analysis of variance).

b Only nonsignificant results were reported.

c The effectiveness of the intervention is reported as mixed based on both significant and non-significant results.

d Difference between baseline measurements and measurements at follow-up could not be calculated from presented data.

* P ≤ .05

** P ≤ .01

*** P ≤ .001