Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Randomised controlled trial to evaluate the influence of mHealth and eHealth skin cancer prevention education among young organ transplant recipients: the HIPPOlino intervention study
  1. Silke Böttcher1,
  2. Christoph Buck1,
  3. Hajo Zeeb1,2,
  4. Gudrun Laschewski3,
  5. Carolin Hauer4,
  6. Gunnar Wagner5,
  7. Michael Max Sachse5
  1. 1Leibniz-Institut für Präventionsforschung und Epidemiologie–BIPS, Bremen, Germany
  2. 2High-Profile Research Area Health Sciences, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
  3. 3Deutscher Wetterdienst, Freiburg, Germany
  4. 4Bremen Cancer Society, Bremen, Germany
  5. 5Department of Dermatology, Allergology and Phlebology, Klinikum Bremerhaven Reinkenheide, Bremerhaven, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Silke Böttcher; boettcher{at}leibniz-bips.de

Abstract

Objectives To determine whether a multicomponent sun protection intervention programme (mHealth) for young organ transplant recipients (OTR) leads to a higher increase of preventive knowledge and behavioural change than an e-learning education programme (eHealth).

Design Randomised controlled trial with one preintervention baseline survey and three follow-up surveys after 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months. Comparison of two different intervention schedules with a control group (CG).

Setting Multicomponent sun protection trainings in Germany, the Netherlands and Austria between June 2013 and September 2015.

Participants 137 OTRs (5–22 years of age, 61 females/76 males) participated in the study.

Interventions (A) Intervention group 1 (IG1): personal training with subsequent forwarding of individual ultraviolet index-dependent sun protection recommendations via short message service (SMS); (B) intervention group 2 (IG2): e-learning training without SMS; (C) CG: regular information letters, online training after 1 year.

Outcome measures Key questions were used to form a knowledge and a behavioural score. Behavioural strategies and knowledge were quantified through self-administered questionnaires.

Results Analyses 6 weeks after the intervention showed a higher knowledge increase in both IG compared with the CG (IG1 to CG: OR 12.64, 95% CI 4.20 to 38.20; IG2 to CG: OR 2.59, 95% CI 0.95 to 7.04). Sun protection behaviour improved slightly but not significantly in both IG (IG1 to CG: OR 2.56, 95% CI 0.93 to 7.00; IG2 to CG: OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.32). One year after the intervention, no behavioural changes were observed in either IG compared with the CG. IG1 but not IG2 still scored significantly higher in sun protection knowledge than the CG 1 year after intervention (IG1 to CG: OR 4.46, 95% CI 1.48 to 13.43; IG2 to CG: OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.51 to 3.93).

Conclusions This multicomponent sun protection programme provides a promising strategy to increase sun protection knowledge and possibly also protective behaviour in young OTR.

Trial registration number DRKS00011393.

  • organ transplantation
  • sun protection training
  • SMS
  • UV light
  • children
  • adolescents

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors SB, CB and HZ had full access to all study data and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: MMS, SB. Acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data: CB, SB, MMS, HZ. Drafting of the manuscript: SB, CB, CH, MMS, HZ. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: SB, CH, MMS, GL, HZ. Statistical analysis: CB. Obtained funding: SB, MMS, HZ. Administrative, technical or material support: GL, GW. Study supervision: SB, MMS, GW, HZ.

  • Funding The publication of this article was funded by the Open Access Fund of the Leibniz Association. This work was supported by the German Cancer Aid ('Deutsche Krebshilfe e.V.') (grant number 110861).

  • Competing interests HZ, MMS and SB report grants from German Cancer Aid, during the conduct of the study.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Review Board of the University of Bremen.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.