Chapter 5 106 instrumental in directing the design and design process of an eHealth intervention aimed at groups with a low SEP. Key lessons learned underline the necessity of a flexible and resource-efficient approach, the vital role of participatory methods in maintaining robust stakeholder engagement, the importance of including personalization features to ensure close alignment with the target group, and the need for a design that focuses on essential functionalities and ease of use to facilitate resource allocation and user acceptance. Our study found that involving users and stakeholders at every project stage was crucial, as it facilitated the successful application of other recommendations, aligning interventions with participants’ lifestyles and technology use, and maintaining stakeholder engagement. However, this participation, particularly from low-SEP groups, required significant resources—a common challenge in eHealth development for such populations (Lee et al., 2022). Despite our resource constraints, we focused exclusively on low-SEP populations in CR, effectively recruiting and retaining participants. We suggest that future projects should develop a clear, strategic plan and commit resources specifically for including participants with a low SEP, as their involvement might be overlooked in projects where they are not the primary focus. We also found that usability was a key factor for the acceptance of our eHealth intervention. Ensuring good usability is especially crucial for low-SEP groups, as they face additional barriers like limited digital literacy (Lee et al., 2022). The high rating for usability could be attributed to the simplicity of the intervention. This approach aligns with the recommendations provided in the IeG, which advises against making interventions too complex. Some studies support the idea that complex, multi-component eHealth interventions with multiple behavior change techniques can be effective in realizing behavior change (Duff et al., 2017). This could indeed be beneficial to some users, as it allows users to engage with functionalities that fit best with their needs and interests. Yet, for some less digitally literate users, such interventions can often be overwhelming, by presenting the user with too many options (Michie et al., 2009). The simplicity of the intervention in this study may have made it easier for participants to engage with the content and complete the intended actions. The study highlights several key improvements for the IeG. Firstly, the guide would benefit from a section suggesting different implications during its application. This section should highlight the importance of selectively and adaptively applying recommendations, tailored to the unique needs and contexts of specific projects, rather than rigidly adhering to, or trying to incorporate all recommendations indiscriminately. Furthermore, incorporating the recommendation table from this study as a downloadable
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw