JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Increasingly, brief digital interventions are being implemented to combat alcohol misuse. While the utility of incorporating personalised feedback into these interventions has been explored, less work has concentrated on how consumer-driven research might be harnessed to better tailor personalised feedback. Critically, the relative efficacy of co-designed interventions versus those designed by research teams without stakeholder input has not typically been explored.

Objective:

Elicit user-designed personalised feedback to incorporate into an existing brief digital intervention developed to combat hazardous drinking. Evaluate whether participants prefer the co-designed product over those designed by research teams. Investigate differences in capacity, opportunity, and motivation (as per the COM-B model) to alter alcohol use behaviour, as well as change in actual consumption over time, as a function of co-designed (image-based) versus researcher-designed (image- or text-based) personalised feedback.

Methods:

Using a co-design process and following qualitative thematic analysis, personalised feedback regarding alcohol intake and brain health was available in three formats: i) researcher designed, text-based, ii) researcher-designed, image-based, and iii) co-designed, image-based. Preferred format of feedback, impact on capacity, opportunity, and motivation to alter alcohol use behaviour, plus change in alcohol consumption 3 months post-intervention was investigated via s series of repeated measures ANOVA.

Results:

Participants (N=222, mean age 21.14, SD 4.69) preferred co-designed, image-based feedback over researcher-designed, image-based (d=0.55) or researcher designed, text-based (d=0.83) feedback. There were no differences in capacity, opportunity, and motivation to alter alcohol use behaviour as a function of feedback format (partial eta squared 0.01). Regardless of feedback format, all participants significantly reduced total alcohol intake (partial eta squared 0.11) and frequency of drinking (partial eta squared 0.29). There was also a significant reduction in alcohol-related harm (partial eta squared 0.05).

Conclusions:

Though the principles of co-design are undeniably valuable, the efficacy of co-designed interventions, over and above those designed by research teams without user input, requires further research.