MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4378696602 · doi:10.2196/44924

Understanding Attrition in Text-Based Health Promotion for Fathers: Survival Analysis

2023· article· en· W4378696602 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Richard Fletcher, Casey Regan, Jason Dizon, Lucy Leigh

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttritionPsychological interventionRuralityIntervention (counseling)MedicineShort Message ServicePsychologyPromotion (chess)Family medicineNursingRural area

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Web-based interventions targeting parents with health and parenting support frequently report high rates of attrition. The SMS4dads text messaging program, developed in Australia, has delivered texts to over 10,000 fathers. The brief text messages, which are sent 3 times per week from 16 weeks of gestation to 48 weeks after birth, include regular reminders that participants can leave the program by texting back "STOP" to any message. Although acceptance of the program is high, almost 1 in 5 ask it to be removed. Analyzing the factors influencing attrition from digital parenting programs such as SMS4dads may assist in developing more effective interventions. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine factors associated with attrition in a text-based intervention targeting fathers. METHODS: Demographic characteristics, requests to complete a psychological scale, individual message content, participant feedback, and automatically collected data registering clicks on links embedded in the texts were examined to identify attrition factors among 3261 participants enrolled in SMS4dads from 4 local health districts in New South Wales, Australia, between September 2020 and December 2021. RESULTS: Participants who were smokers, recorded risky alcohol consumption, had a lower education level, or signed up prenatally had 30% to 47% higher hazard of dropout from the program, whereas participant age, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander status, rurality, and psychological distress score (as Kessler Psychological Distress Scale [K10] category) were not associated with dropout. Primary reasons for dropping out reported by 202 of 605 respondents included "other reasons" (83/202, 41.1%), followed by "not helpful" (47/202, 23.3%) and "too busy" (44/202, 21.8%). Program features such as repeated requests to complete a psychological scale (K10) and the content of individual messages were not linked to increased dropout rates. Analysis of a sample (216/2612) of inactive participants who had not engaged (clicked on any embedded links) for at least 10 weeks but who had not opted out identified a further 1.5% of participants who would opt to leave the program if asked. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying which features of the participant population and of the program are linked to dropout rates can provide guidance for improving program adherence. However, with limited information from feedback surveys of those exiting early, knowing which features to target does not, by itself, suggest ways to increase engagement. Planning ahead to include robust measures of attrition, including more detailed feedback from participants, could provide more effective guidance. A novel element in this study was seeking feedback from inactive participants to estimate dropout from this group and thereby provide an overall dropout rate of 20%. The retention rate of 80%, relatively high compared with other web-based parenting programs for fathers, suggests that tailoring the content to specifically address fathers' role may be an important consideration in reducing fathers' disengagement.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.598
GPT teacher head0.610
Teacher spread0.012 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→