Background Adherence reflects the extent to which individuals experience or engage with the content of online interventions and poses a major challenge. Neglecting to examine and report adherence and its relation to outcomes can compromise the interpretation of research findings. Objective The aim of this systematic review is to analyze how adherence is accounted for in publications and to propose standards for measuring and reporting adherence to online interventions. Methods We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials on online interventions for the prevention and treatment of common mental disorders (depression, anxiety disorders, substance related disorders, and eating disorders) published between January 2006 and May 2018 and indexed in Medline and Web of Science. We included primary publications on manualized online treatments (more than 1 session and successive access to content) and examined how adherence was reported in these publications. Results We identified 216 publications that met our inclusion criteria. Adherence was addressed in 85% of full-text manuscripts, but only in 31% of abstracts. A median of three usage metrics were reported; the most frequently reported usage metric (61%) was intervention completion. Manuscripts published in specialized electronic health journals more frequently included information on the relation of adherence and outcomes. Conclusions We found substantial variety in the reporting of adherence and the usage metrics used to operationalize adherence. This limits the comparability of results and impedes the integration of findings from different studies. Based on our findings, we propose reporting standards for future publications on online interventions.

BackgroundEating disorders are serious conditions associated with an impaired health-related quality of life and increased healthcare utilization and costs. Despite the existence of evidence-based treatments, access to treatment is often delayed due to insufficient health care resources. Internet-based self-help interventions may have the potential to successfully bridge waiting time for face-to-face outpatient treatment and, thus, contribute to overcoming treatment gaps. However, little is known about the feasibility of implementing such interventions into routine healthcare. The aim of this study is to analyze the effects and feasibility of an Internet-based self-help intervention (everyBody Plus) specifically designed for patients with Bulimia Nervosa, Binge Eating Disorder and other specified feeding and eating disorders (OSFED) on a waiting list for outpatient face-to-face treatment. The aim of this paper is to describe the study protocol.MethodsA multi-country randomized controlled trial will be conducted in Germany and the UK. N = 275 female patients awaiting outpatient treatment will be randomly allocated either to the guided online self-help intervention “everyBody Plus” or a waitlist control group condition without access to the intervention. everyBody Plus comprises eight weekly sessions that cover topics related to eating and exercise patterns, coping with negative emotions and stress as well as improving body image. Participants will receive weekly individualized feedback based on their self-monitoring and journal entries. Assessments will take place at baseline, post-intervention as well as at 6- and 12-months follow up. In addition, all participants will be asked to monitor core eating disorder symptoms weekly to provide data on the primary outcome. The primary outcome will be number of weeks after randomization until a patient achieves a clinically relevant improvement in core symptoms (BMI, binge eating, compensatory behaviors) for the first time. Secondary outcomes include frequency of core symptoms and eating disorder related attitudes and behaviors, as well as associated psychopathology. Additional secondary outcomes will be the participating therapists' confidence in treating eating disorders as well as perceived benefits of everyBody Plus for patients.DiscussionTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial examining the effects of Internet-based self-help for outpatients with eating disorders awaiting face-to-face outpatient treatment. If proven to be effective and successfully implemented, Internet-based self-help programs might be used as a first step of treatment within a stepped-care approach, thus reducing burden and cost for both patients and health care providers.

Objective: Using data from a randomized controlled trial, we examined two different strategies to recruit participants for an indicated preventive intervention (StudentBodies-AN) for women at risk for anorexia nervosa and compared symptom severity and program utilization in participants recruited through each strategy.Method: We recruited participants by announcing the study (a) in lectures at universities and handing out screening questionnaires (face-to-face recruitment) and (b) through different media channels, and the participants completed the screening questionnaire on our study website (media-based recruitment). We compared symptom severity and program utilization between the two groups.Results: A total of 4,646 women (face-to-face: 3,741, media-based: 905) were screened and 168 women (face-to-face: 114, media-based: 54) were randomized to the intervention. We found a statistically and clinically significant association between recruitment strategy and symptom severity: Participants who were recruited through media were more likely to fulfill the inclusion criteria (40.6% vs. 13.3%; p < .001) and endorsed significantly more frequently core behaviors and attitudes of disordered eating (EDE global score: 2.72 vs. 2.17, p < .05; Weight Concerns Scale [WCS] score: 66.05 vs. 56.40, p < .05) at baseline than participants recruited face-to-face. Also, participants recruited through media were more likely to log onto the program (χ 2 = 5.06; p = .029) and accessed more of the intervention.Discussion: Recruitment through media seems both more feasible and suitable to reach individuals in need of indicative prevention, and should be part of a multimodal recruitment package. Future studies should be explicitly designed to investigate the impact of recruitment modality on reach and effectiveness including cost-effectiveness analyses.

No abstract