PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12556120

An evaluation model for psychoeducational interventions using interactive multimedia.

Abstract

A review of published evaluations of psychoeducational interventions using interactive digital multimedia shows that evaluations typically address only some of the areas that collectively would constitute a comprehensive evaluation. There appears to be a need for an accepted standard for these evaluations, based on a general evaluation model that encompasses all relevant aspects of development, efficacy and use of multimedia interventions. A comprehensive model is proposed which includes special features of multimedia interventions that lead to unique evaluation requirements. The model integrates relevant aspects of program evaluation and clinical trials models in order to provide a unique model that includes all the evaluation domains relevant to digital multimedia interventions. These include evaluation of intervention theory, intervention design strategies, the formative process, intervention efficacy (process and outcome) and contextual issues such as evaluability assessment, reporting and stakeholder issues. The application of individual components of the model is illustrated with reference to problems in the evaluation literature on a particular type of digital multimedia intervention, electroencephalographic biofeedback for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. The model should be useful for researchers planning evaluations of digital multimedia interventions, especially in the psychoeducational domain. This paper provides a theoretical and evidential background for the evaluation model, and includes a checklist and flowchart for the planning and conduct of the evaluation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ivan L Beale. 2002. An evaluation model for psychoeducational interventions using interactive multimedia.. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493102321018213

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Efficacy of two once-daily methylphenidate formulations compared across dose levels at different times of the day: preliminary indications from a secondary analysis of the COMACS study data.

BACKGROUND: Methylphenidate (MPH) is commonly prescribed in the treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder or ADHD. Concerta and Metadate CD are once-daily formulations of MPH using different delivery mechanisms resulting in different pharmacokinetic profiles. A recent study (COMACS) showed that for near-milligram (mg) equivalent daily doses, Metadate CD provides greater symptom control in the morning (1.5 through 4.5 hours post-dose), while Concerta provides greater control in the early evening (12 hours post-dose). Non-inferential comparison of effects for different dose levels of the two formulations suggested that equivalent levels of morning symptom control could be obtained with lower daily doses of Metadate CD than Concerta; the situation being reversed in the evening. The current paper presents a secondary analysis that provides a statistical test of these observations. METHOD: The COMACS study was a multi-center, double-blind crossover study of Metadate CD, Concerta and placebo with each treatment administered for 1 week. Children were assigned on the basis of their pre-trial dosage to either high (Metadate CD 60 mg; Concerta 54 mg), medium (Metadate CD 40 mg; Concerta 36 mg) or low doses (Metadate CD 20 mg; Concerta 18 mg) of MPH, and attended a laboratory school on the 7th day for assessment at 7 sessions across the day. For the post-hoc comparisons across dose levels presented here, total SKAMP scores with the active treatments (adjusted for placebo response) were analyzed using an analysis of covariance, with a combined measure modeling placebo response across all time period as the covariate. RESULTS: Symptom control from 1.5 through 6.0 hours post-dose was as good with lower doses of Metadate CD (20 and 40 mg) as with higher doses of Concerta (36 and 54 mg, respectively). Lower daily doses of Concerta (18 and 36 mg) and higher doses of Metadate CD (40 and 60 mg, respectively) gave equivalent control at 7.5 and 12 hours with Metadate CD giving better control from1.5 through 6.0 hours post-dose. CONCLUSIONS: Different delivery profiles of Metadate CD and Concerta can be exploited to limit total daily exposure to MPH while at the same targeting a specific, especially clinically significant, period of the day. These results need to be confirmed in a study in which children are randomly allocated to different dose levels of the two formulations and plasma MPH concentrations are assessed simultaneously.

Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity↗