Human cues in eHealth to promote lifestyle change

An experimental field study to examine adherence to self-help interventions

Journal Article (2024)
Author(s)

T. R. Cohen Rodrigues (Universiteit Leiden)

D. R. de Buisonjé (Universiteit Leiden)

Thomas Reijnders (Universiteit Leiden)

Prabhakaran Santhanam (ETH Zürich)

Tobias Kowatsch (ETH Zürich, University of St. Gallen, Universitat Zurich)

Linda D. Breeman (Universiteit Leiden)

Veronica Janssen (Leiden University Medical Center, Universiteit Leiden)

Roderik A. Kraaijenhagen (NDDO Institute for Prevention and Early Diagnostics (NIPED), Amsterdam, Vital10, Amsterdam)

Douwe E. Atsma (Leiden University Medical Center)

A.W.M. Evers (TU Delft - Human Factors, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Universiteit Leiden, Leiden University Medical Center)

Research Group
Human Factors
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2024.100726
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2024
Language
English
Research Group
Human Factors
Volume number
35
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

eHealth lifestyle interventions without human support (self-help interventions) are generally less effective, as they suffer from lower adherence levels. To solve this, we investigated whether (1) using a text-based conversational agent (TCA) and applying human cues contribute to a working alliance with the TCA, and whether (2) adding human cues and establishing a positive working alliance increase intervention adherence. Participants (N = 121) followed a TCA-supported app-based physical activity intervention. We manipulated two types of human cues: visual (ie, message appearance) and relational (ie, message content). We employed a 2 (visual cues: yes, no) x 2 (relational cues: yes, no) between-subjects design, resulting in four experimental groups: (1) visual and relational cues, (2) visual cues only, (3) relational cues only, or (4) no human cues. We measured the working alliance with the Working Alliance Inventory Short Revised form and intervention adherence as the number of days participants responded to the TCA's messages. Contrary to expectations, the working alliance was unaffected by using human cues. Working alliance was positively related to adherence (t(78) = 3.606, p = .001). Furthermore, groups who received visual cues showed lower adherence levels compared to those who received relational cues only or no cues (U = 1140.5, z = −3.520, p < .001). We replicated the finding that establishing a working alliance contributes to intervention adherence, independently of the use of human cues in a TCA. However, we were unable to show that adding human cues impacted the working alliance and increased adherence. The results indicate that adding visual cues to a TCA may even negatively affect adherence, possibly because it may create confusion concerning the true nature of the coach, which may prompt unrealistic expectations.