Matching Items (2)
- All Subjects: Digital Health
- Creators: Beaman, Abigail Marie
- Resource Type: Text
Development of a Game-Based Intervention to Promote HPV Vaccination Among Adolescents: A Qualitative Analysis
Purpose: This qualitative research aimed to create a developmentally and gender-appropriate game-based intervention to promote Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in adolescents. <br/>Background: Ranking as the most common sexually transmitted infection, about 80 million Americans are currently infected by HPV, and it continues to increase with an estimated 14 million new cases yearly. Certain types of HPV have been significantly associated with cervical, vaginal, and vulvar cancers in women; penile cancers in men; and oropharyngeal and anal cancers in both men and women. Despite HPV vaccination being one of the most effective methods in preventing HPV-associated cancers, vaccination rates remain suboptimal in adolescents. Game-based intervention, a novel medium that is popular with adolescents, has been shown to be effective in promoting health behaviors. <br/>Methods: Sample/Sampling. We used purposeful sampling to recruit eight adolescent-parent dyads (N = 16) which represented both sexes (4 boys, 4 girls) and different racial/ethnic groups (White, Black, Latino, Asian American) in the United States. The inclusion criteria for the dyads were: (1) a child aged 11-14 years and his/her parent, and (2) ability to speak, read, write, and understand English. Procedure. After eligible families consented to their participation, semi-structured interviews (each 60-90 minutes long) were conducted with each adolescent-parent dyad in a quiet and private room. Each dyad received $50 to acknowledge their time and effort. Measure. The interview questions consisted of two parts: (a) those related to game design, functioning, and feasibility of implementation; (b) those related to theoretical constructs of the Health Belief Model (HBM) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Data analysis. The interviews were audio-recorded with permission and manually transcribed into textual data. Two researchers confirmed the verbatim transcription. We use pre-developed codes to identify each participant’s responses and organize data and develop themes based on the HBM and TPB constructs. After the analysis was completed, three researchers in the team reviewed the results and discussed the discrepancies until a consensus is reached.<br/>Results: The findings suggested that the most common motivating factors for adolescents’ HPV vaccination were its effectiveness, benefits, convenience, affordable cost, reminders via text, and recommendation by a health care provider. Regarding the content included in the HPV game, participants suggested including information about who and when should receive the vaccine, what is HPV and the vaccination, what are the consequences if infected, the side effects of the vaccine, and where to receive the vaccine. The preferred game design elements were: 15 minutes long, stories about fighting or action, option to choose characters/avatars, motivating factors (i.e., rewards such as allowing users to advance levels and receive coins when correctly answering questions), use of a portable electronic device (e.g., tablet) to deliver the education. Participants were open to multiplayer function which assists in a facilitated conversation about HPV and the HPV vaccine. Overall, the participants concluded enthusiasm for an interactive yet engaging game-based intervention to learn about the HPV vaccine with the goal to increase HPV vaccination in adolescents. <br/>Implications: Tailored educational games have the potential to decrease the stigma of HPV and HPV vaccination, increasing communication between the adolescent, parent, and healthcare provider, as well as increase the overall HPV vaccination rate.
Many individual-level behavioral interventions improve health and well-being. However, most interventions exhibit considerable heterogeneity in response. Put differently, what might be effective on average might not be effective for specific individuals. From an individual’s perspective, many healthy behaviors exist that seem to have a positive impact. However, few existing tools support people in identifying interventions that work for them, personally.
One approach to support such personalization is via self-experimentation using single-case designs. ‘Hack Your Health’ is a tool that guides individuals through an 18-day self-experiment to test if an intervention they choose (e.g., meditation, gratitude journaling) improves their own psychological well-being (e.g., stress, happiness), whether it fits in their routine, and whether they enjoy it.
The purpose of this work was to conduct a formative evaluation of Hack Your Health to examine user burden, adherence, and to evaluate its usefulness in supporting decision-making about a health intervention. A mixed-methods approach was used, and two versions of the tool were tested via two waves of participants (Wave 1, N=20; Wave 2, N=8). Participants completed their self-experiments and provided feedback via follow-up surveys (n=26) and interviews (n=20).
Findings indicated that the tool had high usability and low burden overall. Average survey completion rate was 91%, and compliance to protocol was 72%. Overall, participants found the experience useful to test if their chosen intervention helped them. However, there were discrepancies between participants’ intuition about intervention effect and results from analyses. Participants often relied on intuition/lived experience over results for decision-making. This suggested that the usefulness of Hack Your Health in its current form might be through the structure, accountability, and means for self-reflection it provided rather than the specific experimental design/results. Additionally, situations where performing interventions within a rigorous/restrictive experimental set-up may not be appropriate (e.g., when goal is to assess intervention enjoyment) were uncovered. Plausible design implications include: longer experimental and phase durations, accounting for non-compliance, missingness, and proximal/acute effects, and exploring strategies to complement quantitative data with participants’ lived experiences with interventions to effectively support decision-making. Future work should explore ways to balance scientific rigor with participants’ needs for such decision-making.