Effectiveness of a Peer-Led Web-Based Intervention to Improve General Self-Efficacy in Using Dating Apps Among Young Adults: Randomized Clustered Trial

William Cw Wong, Wai Han Sun, Shu Ming Cheryl Chia, Joseph D Tucker, William Ph Mak, Lin Song, Kitty Wai Ying Choi, Stephanie Tsz Hei Lau, Eric Yuk Fai Wan, William Cw Wong, Wai Han Sun, Shu Ming Cheryl Chia, Joseph D Tucker, William Ph Mak, Lin Song, Kitty Wai Ying Choi, Stephanie Tsz Hei Lau, Eric Yuk Fai Wan

Abstract

Background: Online dating apps are popular platforms for seeking romance and sexual relationships among young adults. As mobile apps can easily gain access to a pool of strangers ("new friends") at any time and place, it leads to heightened sexual health risks and privacy concerns.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a peer-led web-based intervention for online dating apps to prepare Chinese college students so that they have better self-efficacy when using dating apps.

Methods: An open clustered randomized controlled trial was conducted among students from three colleges (The University of Hong Kong, Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, and Yijin Programme of Vocational Training College) in Hong Kong. Students aged 17 to 27 years who attended common core curriculum or general education were randomized into intervention and control groups. The intervention material, developed with high peer engagement, included four short videos, an interactive scenario game, and a risk assessment tool. An existing website promoting physical activities and healthy living was used as a control. Using the information, motivation, and behavioral skills (IMB) approach to design the evaluation, questionnaires covering participants' sociodemographics and dating app characteristics, as well as the general self-efficacy scale (GSE) as the primary outcome and the risk propensity scale (RPS) as the secondary outcome were administered before, immediately after, and at 1 month after the intervention. Intention-to-treat analysis was adopted, and between-group differences were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test. A post-hoc multiple linear regression model was used to examine the correlates of the GSE and RPS.

Results: A total of 578 eligible participants (290 in the intervention group and 288 in the control group) participated in the study with 36 lost to follow-up. There were more female participants (318/542, 58.7%) than male participants in the sample, reflecting the distribution of college students. Over half of the participants (286/542, 52.8%) reported the following reasons for using dating apps: being curious (170/498, 34.1%), trying to make new friends (158/498, 31.7%), and finding friends with similar interests (121/498, 24.3%). Overall, the participants in the intervention group reported favorable experiences when compared with the finding in the control group. There was significant improvement in the GSE score and reduction in the RPS score (P<.001) in the intervention group. University of Hong Kong students were more susceptible to risk reduction after the intervention when compared with students from the other two institutions.

Conclusions: The online intervention was effective in improving general self-efficacy and reducing risk tendency among young students. Future work is needed to determine if this approach is cost-effective and such behavioral change is sustainable.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03685643; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03685643.

International registered report identifier (irrid): RR2-10.1186/s13063-018-3167-5.

Keywords: internet; risk assessment; self-efficacy; sexual health; young adult.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©William CW Wong, Wai Han Sun, Shu Ming Cheryl Chia, Joseph D Tucker, William PH Mak, Lin Song, Kitty Wai Ying Choi, Stephanie Tsz Hei Lau, Eric Yuk Fai Wan. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 30.10.2020.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Screenshots of the online game.
Figure 2
Figure 2
CONSORT flow diagram. HKU: University of Hong Kong; HSUHK: Hang Seng University of Hong Kong; VTC: Vocational Training College.

References

    1. Tran A, Suharlim C, Mattie H, Davison K, Agénor M, Austin SB. Dating app use and unhealthy weight control behaviors among a sample of U.S. adults: a cross-sectional study. J Eat Disord. 2019 May 31;7(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s40337-019-0244-4.
    1. Yi S, Te V, Pengpid S, Peltzer K. Social and behavioural factors associated with risky sexual behaviours among university students in nine ASEAN countries: a multi-country cross-sectional study. SAHARA J. 2018 Dec;15(1):71–79. doi: 10.1080/17290376.2018.1503967.
    1. Sumter S, Vandenbosch L. Dating gone mobile: Demographic and personality-based correlates of using smartphone-based dating applications among emerging adults. 2018 Oct 20;21(3):655–673. doi: 10.1177/1461444818804773. doi: 10.1177/1461444818804773.
    1. Four in ten Hong Kongers have used internet dating Internet. YouGov. 2017. [2019-06-10].
    1. Sexual Behaviour. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Centre for Health Protection) 2017. [2019-06-01]. .
    1. Choi EP, Wong JY, Lo HH, Wong W, Chio JH, Fong DY. The Impacts of Using Smartphone Dating Applications on Sexual Risk Behaviours in College Students in Hong Kong. PLoS One. 2016 Nov 9;11(11):e0165394. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165394.
    1. Sawyer A, Smith E, Benotsch E. Dating Application Use and Sexual Risk Behavior Among Young Adults. Sex Res Soc Policy. 2017 Sep 6;15(2):183–191. doi: 10.1007/s13178-017-0297-6. doi: 10.1007/s13178-017-0297-6.
    1. Hayaki J, Anderson B, Stein M. Sexual risk-taking mediates the association between impulsivity and acquisition of sexually transmitted infections among hazardously drinking incarcerated women. Am J Addict. 2012 Nov;21 Suppl 1(1):S63–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1521-0391.2012.00296.x.
    1. Wong W, Song L, See C, Lau S, Sun W, Choi W, Tucker J. Using Crowdsourcing to Develop a Peer-Led Intervention for Safer Dating App Use: Pilot Study. JMIR Form Res. 2020 Apr 21;4(4):e12098. doi: 10.2196/12098.
    1. Che FS. A study of the implementation of sex education in Hong Kong secondary schools. Sex Education. 2005 Aug;5(3):281–294. doi: 10.1080/14681810500171458. doi: 10.1080/14681810500171458.
    1. MacDowall W, Bonnell C, Davies M. Health Promotion Practice. London, UK: Open University Press; 2006.
    1. Sun WH, Miu HY, Wong CK, Tucker JD, Wong WC. Assessing Participation and Effectiveness of the Peer-Led Approach in Youth Sexual Health Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in More Developed Countries. J Sex Res. 2018 Jan 29;55(1):31–44. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1247779.
    1. Tucker J, Day S, Tang W, Bayus B. Crowdsourcing in medical research: concepts and applications. PeerJ. 2019;7:e6762. doi: 10.7717/peerj.6762. doi: 10.7717/peerj.6762.
    1. Tang W, Wei C, Cao B, Wu D, Li KT, Lu H, Ma W, Kang D, Li H, Liao M, Mollan KR, Hudgens MG, Liu C, Huang W, Liu A, Zhang Y, Smith MK, Mitchell KM, Ong JJ, Fu H, Vickerman P, Yang L, Wang C, Zheng H, Yang B, Tucker JD. Crowdsourcing to expand HIV testing among men who have sex with men in China: A closed cohort stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2018 Aug;15(8):e1002645. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002645.
    1. Brabham DC, Ribisl KM, Kirchner TR, Bernhardt JM. Crowdsourcing applications for public health. Am J Prev Med. 2014 Feb;46(2):179–87. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.10.016.
    1. Rohrbach LA, Berglas NF, Jerman P, Angulo-Olaiz F, Chou C, Constantine NA. A Rights-Based Sexuality Education Curriculum for Adolescents: 1-Year Outcomes From a Cluster-Randomized Trial. J Adolesc Health. 2015 Oct;57(4):399–406. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.07.004.
    1. Dettori J. The random allocation process: two things you need to know. Evid Based Spine Care J. 2010 Dec;1(3):7–9. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1267062.
    1. Lau ST, Choi KW, Chen J, Mak WP, Yeung HK, Tucker J, Wong WC. Study protocol for a peer-led web-based intervention to promote safe usage of dating applications among young adults: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2019 Feb 06;20(1):102. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-3167-5.
    1. Healthy exercise for all campaign. Leisure and Cultural Services Department. 2014. [2019-06-01].
    1. Fisher WA, Fisher JD, Rye BJ. Understanding and promoting AIDS-preventive behavior: Insights from the theory of reasoned action. Health Psychology. 1995;14(3):255–264. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.14.3.255.
    1. Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Generalized self-efficacy scale. In: Weinman J, Wright S, Johnston M, editors. Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson; 1995. pp. 35–37.
    1. Meertens R, Lion R. Measuring an Individual's Tendency to Take Risks: The Risk Propensity Scale. J Appl Social Pyschol. 2008 Jun;38(6):1506–1520. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00357.x.
    1. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener. Med Care. 2003 Nov;41(11):1284–92. doi: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000093487.78664.3C.
    1. Pitcho-Prelorentzos S, Heckel C, Ring L. Predictors of social anxiety among online dating users. Computers in Human Behavior. 2020 Sep;110:106381. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106381. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106381.
    1. Huang ET, Williams H, Hocking JS, Lim MS. Safe Sex Messages Within Dating and Entertainment Smartphone Apps: A Review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Nov 08;4(4):e124. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.5760.
    1. Chan LS. Who uses dating apps? Exploring the relationships among trust, sensation-seeking, smartphone use, and the intent to use dating apps based on the Integrative Model. Computers in Human Behavior. 2017 Jul;72:246–258. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.053.
    1. Bailey J, Mann S, Wayal S, Hunter R, Free C, Abraham C, Murray E. Sexual health promotion for young people delivered via digital media: a scoping review. Public Health Res. 2015 Nov;3(13):1–120. doi: 10.3310/phr03130.
    1. Wakefield M, Loken B, Hornik R. Use of mass media campaigns to change health behaviour. The Lancet. 2010 Oct;376(9748):1261–1271. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60809-4. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60809-4.
    1. Hanoch Y, Johnson JG, Wilke A. Domain specificity in experimental measures and participant recruitment: an application to risk-taking behavior. Psychol Sci. 2006 Apr 06;17(4):300–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01702.x.
    1. Mellanby A, Newcombe R, Rees J, Tripp J. A comparative study of peer-led and adult-led school sex education. Health Educ Res. 2001 Aug;16(4):481–92. doi: 10.1093/her/16.4.481. doi: 10.1093/her/16.4.481.
    1. Schroder KE, Carey MP, Vanable PA. Methodological challenges in research on sexual risk behavior: II. Accuracy of self-reports. Ann Behav Med. 2003 Oct;26(2):104–23. doi: 10.1207/S15324796ABM2602_03.
    1. Borgia P, Marinacci C, Schifano P, Perucci CA. Is peer education the best approach for HIV prevention in schools? Findings from a randomized controlled trial. J Adolesc Health. 2005 Jun;36(6):508–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.03.005.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する