Factors Affecting Online Health Promotion Program Adherence Among People with Disabilities
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Online Health Promotion Programs
2.1.1. MENTOR
2.1.2. GROWTH
2.1.3. SOSE
2.2. Survey
2.3. Participants
2.4. Procedures
2.4.1. Data Collection
- I enjoyed the virtual teaching components of MENTOR.
- I enjoyed the virtual teaching components of GROWTH.
2.4.2. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Chi-Square Tests and Spearman Correlation Analyses
3.2. Logistic Regression Analysis
3.3. Results of Spearman Correlation Analyses for GROWTH and SOSE
- Highly likely to perceive the program as not disability friendly (−0.771, p = 0.003);
- Highly likely to not enjoy the virtual teaching component of the program (−0.839, p ≤ 0.001);
- Highly likely to not enjoy the virtual participant interaction of the program (−0.664, p = 0.019);
- Highly likely to perceive the instructor did not interact with the class other than to give verbal instruction (−0.695, p = 0.012);
- Highly likely to perceive class content as not modified or adapted to their disability or comfortability (−0.741, p = 0.006);
- Highly likely to perceive their instructors are not knowledgeable about disability (−0.741, p = 0.006);
- Very highly likely to have a negative relationship with their instructors (−0.996, p ≤ 0.001);
- Very highly likely to not perceive instructors using appropriate language and/or vocabulary during class (−1.000, p = 0.001);
- Highly likely to not appreciate their instructors (−0.771, p = 0.003);
- Highly likely to be disengaged from other participants (−0.771, p = 0.003);
- Highly likely to not be satisfied with the virtual program (−0.776, p = 0.003).
- Highly likely to have a negative relationship with their instructors (−0.632, p = 0.027);
- Highly likely to not want their support network involved in the program (−0.776, p = 0.003).
- Highly likely to perceive the virtual environment as inaccessible (−0.658, p = 0.020);
- Highly likely to perceive their online group as interacting poorly amongst themselves (−0.612, p = 0.035);
- Very highly likely to not want their support network involved in the program (−0.816, p = 0.001).
- Very highly likely to perceive the program as not disability friendly (−0.812, p = 0.001);
- Very highly likely to not enjoy the virtual teaching component of the program (−0.843, p ≤ 0.001);
- Very highly likely to perceive class content as not modified or adapted to their disability or comfortability (−0.830, p ≤ 0.001);
- Very highly likely to perceive the class content as not enjoyable (−0.899, p ≤ 0.001);
- Highly likely to have a negative relationship with their instructors (−0.698, p = 0.012);
- Highly likely to not appreciate their instructors (−0.691, p = 0.013);
- Highly likely to be disengaged from other participants (−0.691, p = 0.013);
- Very highly likely to not be satisfied with the virtual program (−0.854, p ≤ 0.001);
- Very highly likely to not recommend this program to others (−0.812, p = 0.001).
- Very highly likely to not want their support network involved in the program (−0.866, p = 0.026).
3.4. Participant Experiences
4. Discussion
4.1. Limitations
4.2. Future Directions
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Van Dyke, M.E.; Chen, T.J.; Nakayama, J.Y.; Moore, L.V.; Whitfield, G.P. Changes in Physical Inactivity Among US Adults Overall and by Sociodemographic Characteristics, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2020 Versus 2018. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2023, 20, E65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- John Hopkins Medicine. Risks of Physical Inactivity. 2024. Available online: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/risks-of-physical-inactivity (accessed on 9 June 2024).
- Rimmer, J.H.; Marques, A.C. Physical activity for people with disabilities. Lancet 2012, 380, 193–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lim, J.Y. Aging with Disability: What Should We Pay Attention to? Ann. Geriatr. Med. Res. 2022, 26, 61–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Benefits of Physical Activity; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2024. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/physical-activity-basics/benefits/index.html (accessed on 9 June 2024).
- Vincenzo, J.L.; Hergott, C.; Schrodt, L.; Rohrer, B.; Brach, J.; Tripken, J.; Shirley, K.D.; Sidelinker, J.C.; Shubert, T.E. Capitalizing on Virtual Delivery of Community Programs to Support Health and Well-Being of Older Adults. Phys. Ther. 2021, 101, pzab001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Center on Health, Physical Activity and Disability. Building Healthy, Inclusive Communities. NCHPAD.org. 2024. Available online: https://www.nchpad.org (accessed on 14 August 2024).
- Rimmer, J.H.; Young, H.J.; Bachiashvili, V.; Baidwan, N.K.; Mehta, T. Enhancements to a Telewellness Program for People with Physical Disabilities: Mindfulness, Exercise, and Nutrition To Optimize Resilience (MENTOR 2.0). Prev. Chronic Dis. 2024, 21, E02. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rimmer, J.H.; Wilroy, J.; Galea, P.; Jeter, A.; Lai, B. Retrospective evaluation of a pilot eHealth/mHealth telewellness program for people with disabilities: Mindfulness, Exercise, and Nutrition To Optimize Resilience (MENTOR). mHealth 2022, 8, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giné-Garriga, M.; Roqué-Fíguls, M.; Coll-Planas, L.; Sitjà-Rabert, M.; Salvà, A. Physical Exercise Interventions for Improving Performance-Based Measures of Physical Function in Community-Dwelling, Frail Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2014, 95, 753–769.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herman, C.; Vanderbom, K.; Edwards, K.; Eisenberg, Y. Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation of Inclusive Policy, Systems, and Environmental Changes. Disabilities 2024, 4, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malone, L.A.; Barfield, J.P.; Brasher, J.D. Perceived benefits and barriers to exercise among persons with physical disabilities or chronic health conditions within action or maintenance stages of exercise. Disabil. Health J. 2012, 5, 254–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mckenzie, G.; Willis, C.; Shields, N. Barriers and facilitators of physical activity participation for young people and adults with childhood-onset physical disability: A mixed methods systematic review. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2021, 63, 914–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richardson, E.V.; Smith, B.; Papathomas, A. Disability and the gym: Experiences, barriers and facilitators of gym use for individuals with physical disabilities. Disabil. Rehabil. 2017, 39, 1950–1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Costa, R.R.G.; Dorneles, J.R.; Veloso, J.H.; Goncalves, C.W.; Neto, F.R. Synchronous and asynchronous tele-exercise during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: Comparisons of implementation and training load in individuals with spinal cord injury. J. Telemed. Telecare 2023, 29, 308–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wilroy, J.; Lai, B.; Currie, M.; Young, H.-J.; Thirumalai, M.; Mehta, T.; Giannone, J.; Rimmer, J. Teleassessments for Enrollment of Adults With Physical or Mobility Disability in a Home-Based Exercise Trial in Response to COVID-19: Usability Study. JMIR Form. Res. 2021, 5, e29799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Frieden, T.R. Six Components Necessary for Effective Public Health Program Implementation. Am. J. Public Health 2014, 104, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Center on Health Physical Activity and Disability. Our Programs. NCHPAD. 2024. Available online: https://www.nchpad.org/nchpad-connect/ (accessed on 9 June 2024).
- Lanzi, R. NCHPAD GROWTH. Inclusive Well-Being Translational Science Collaborative. 2024. Available online: https://sites.uab.edu/iwtsc/community-engagement/ (accessed on 9 June 2024).
- Clina, J.G.; Wyatt, H.R.; Hill, J.O.; Ferguson, C.C.; Young, H.-J.; Rimmer, J.H. Pilot evaluation of a behavioral weight loss program for adults with physical disabilities: State of Slim Everybody usability and feasibility. Obes. Sci. Pract. 2024, 10, e750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mintz, M.; Ferguson, C.; Dayton, L.A.B.; Wilroy, J.; Rimmer, J.H. Qualitative evaluation of factors influencing adherence to virtual exercise programs for people with physical disabilities. Front. Rehabil. Sci. 2024, 5, 1470630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Motl, R.W.; Bollaert, R.E.; Sandroff, B.M. Validation of the Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire classification coding system using accelerometry in multiple sclerosis. Rehabil. Psychol. 2018, 63, 77–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Qualtrics Software, Version 2024. 2020. Available online: https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/citing-qualtrics/ (accessed on 9 June 2024).
- Healthie. Available online: https://www.gethealthie.com (accessed on 9 June 2024).
- Hawley-Hague, H.; Horne, M.; Campbell, M.; Demack, S.; Skelton, D.A.; Todd, C. Multiple Levels of Influence on Older Adults’ Attendance and Adherence to Community Exercise Classes. Gerontologist 2013, 54, 599–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh, Version 29.0.2.0. Released 2023. IBM Corp: Armonk, NY, USA, 2023.
- Essery, R.; Geraghty, A.W.A.; Kirby, S.; Yardley, L. Predictors of adherence to home-based physical therapies: A systematic review. Disabil. Rehabil. 2017, 39, 519–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holt, D.T.; Helfrich, C.D.; Hall, C.G.; Weiner, B.J. Are you ready? How health professionals can comprehensively conceptualize readiness for change. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2010, 25 (Suppl. S1), 50–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, J.K.; Floegel, T.A.; Li, L.C.; Leese, J.; De Vera, M.A.; Beauchamp, M.R.; Taunton, J.; Liu-Ambrose, T.; Allen, K.D. Tailored physical activity behavior change interventions: Challenges and opportunities. Transl. Behav. Med. 2021, 11, 2174–2181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Balducci, S.; D’Errico, V.; Haxhi, J.; Sacchetti, M.; Orlando, G.; Cardelli, P.; Vitale, M.; Bollanti, L.; Conti, F.; Zanuso, S.; et al. Effect of a Behavioral Intervention Strategy on Sustained Change in Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: The IDES_2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2019, 321, 880–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hawley-Hague, H.; Horne, M.; Skelton, D.A.; Todd, C. Review of how we should define (and measure) adherence in studies examining older adults’ participation in exercise classes. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e011560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Budworth, L.; Prestwich, A.; Sykes-Muskett, B.; Khatun, K.; Ireland, J.; Clancy, F.; Conner, M. A feasibility study to assess the individual and combined effects of financial incentives and monetary contingency contracts on physical activity. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2019, 44, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neale, A.V.; Singleton, S.P.; Dupuis, M.H.; Hess, J.W. The Use of Behavioral Contracting to Increase Exercise Activity. Am. J. Health Promot. 1990, 4, 441–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rhodes, R.E.; Martin, A.D.; Taunton, J.E.; Rhodes, E.C.; Donnelly, M.; Elliot, J. Factors Associated with Exercise Adherence Among Older Adults. Sports Med. 1999, 28, 397–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ha, S.; Ho, S.H.; Bae, Y.H.; Lee, M.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, J.H.; Lee, J. Digital Health Equity and Tailored Health Care Service for People with Disability: User-Centered Design and Usability Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2023, 25, e50029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Migliaccio, G. Disabled People in the Stakeholder Theory: A Literature Analysis. J. Knowl. Econ. 2019, 10, 1657–1678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Demographics (N = 42) | N (%) |
---|---|
Race | |
White | 28 (66.7%) |
Black | 11 (26.2%) |
Other | 3 (7.2%) |
Region | |
Southeast | 19 (45.2%) |
Southwest | 4 (9.5%) |
West | 3 (7.1%) |
Midwest | 3 (7.1%) |
Northeast | 13 (31%) |
Disability @ | |
Mobility | 28 (66.7%) |
Bone or Joint | 12 (28.6%) |
Other | 2 (4.8%) |
Assistive Devices + | |
Manual wheelchair | 16 (38.1%) |
Power wheelchair | 11 (26.2%) |
Cane | 14 (33.3%) |
Caregiver/personal assistance | 13 (31%) |
Walker | 11 (26.2%) |
Ankle–foot orthosis | 9 (21.4%) |
Rollator | 6 (14.3%) |
Scooter | 2 (4.8%) |
Crutches | 1 (2.4%) |
Other | 1 (2.4%) |
None | 1 (2.4%) |
Gender | |
Female | 32 (76.2%) |
Male | 10 (23.8%) |
Age | |
30–39 | 3 (7.1%) |
40–49 | 7 (16.7%) |
50–59 | 15 (35.7%) |
60–69 | 9 (21.4%) |
70–79 | 8 (19%) |
Level of Education | |
Did not complete high school | 2 (4.8%) |
High school degree or equivalent | 1 (2.4%) |
Some college or associate’s degree | 13 (31%) |
Bachelor’s degree | 13 (31%) |
Master’s degree | 10 (23.8%) |
Doctoral degree | 3 (7.1%) |
Marital Status | |
Married | 17 (40.5%) |
Widowed | 2 (4.8%) |
Divorced | 6 (14.3%) |
Separated | 2 (4.8%) |
Never married | 11 (26.2%) |
Domestic partnership | 2 (4.8%) |
Prefer not to answer | 2 (4.8%) |
Employment Status | |
Currently employed (no) | 31 (73.8%) |
Currently employed (yes) | 11 (26.2%) |
GLTEQ Scores (N = 37) # | |
Sedentary | 3 (7.1%) |
Moderately Active | 10 (23.8%) |
Active | 24 (57.1%) |
MENTOR Program Adherence (N = 41) | |
n/a | 1 (2.4%) |
Low | 12 (29.3%) |
Moderate | 16 (39.0%) |
High | 12 (29.3%) |
GROWTH Program Adherence (N = 12) | |
Low | 3 (25%) |
Moderate | 5 (41.6%) |
High | 4 (33.3%) |
SOSE Program Adherence (N = 6) | |
High | 6 (100%) |
Virtual Health Program | X2 (df, N, p-Value) | rs (Correlation Coefficient, p-Value) |
---|---|---|
MENTOR●Disability | ||
I enjoyed the virtual teaching component. | (8, N = 41, p = 0.007) | (−0.085, p = 0.599) |
The virtual environment was accessible. | (4, N = 41, p ≤ 0.001) | (−0.295, p = 0.061) |
My mindfulness instructor interacted with my class other than to give out class instruction or feedback. | (10, N = 41, p = 0.005) | (−0.304, p = 0.054) |
The class content was modified or adapted to my disability or comfortability. | (8, N = 41, p = 0.006) | (−0.040, p = 0.805) |
My instructors were knowledgeable about disability. | (10, N = 41, p = 0.001) | (−0.259, p = 0.102) |
I had a positive relationship with my virtual instructors. | (6, N = 41, p = 0.037) | (−0.305, p = 0.053) |
My instructors used appropriate vocabulary and language when giving class instruction. | (4, N = 41, p ≤ 0.001) | (−0.298, p = 0.059) |
I was frustrated my instructors played videos in class instead of providing live instruction. | (6, N = 41, p = 0.002) | (−0.075, p = 0.646) |
I appreciated the tailored curriculum. | (4, N = 41, p = 0.012) | (−0.235, p = 0.139) |
I feel I benefitted mentally from the program. | (4, N = 41, p = 0.012) | (−0.235, p = 0.139) |
I was satisfied with the virtual health program. | (6, N = 41, p = 0.002) | (−0.168, p = 0.295) |
MENTOR●Age | ||
I feel the lecture portion of nutrition classes lasted an appropriate amount of time. | (16, N = 41, p = 0.004) | (0.004, p = 0.981) |
I would recommend this program to others. | (12, N = 41, p = 0.001) | (0.177, p = 0.268) |
MENTOR●Race | ||
I enjoyed the virtual teaching component. | (12, N = 41, p = 0.003) | (−0.271, p = 0.086) |
I enjoyed the virtual participant interaction. | (12, N = 41, p ≤ 0.001) | (−0.060, p = 0.708) |
My online group interacted well amongst ourselves. | (12, N = 41, p = 0.002) | (−0.069, p = 0.666) |
The virtual environment was accessible. | (6, N = 41, p = 0.003) | (−0.112, p = 0.485) |
My mindfulness instructor interacted with my class other than to give out class instruction or feedback. | (15, N = 41, p = 0.043) | (0.106, p = 0.511) |
The class content was modified or adapted to my disability or comfortability. | (12, N = 41, p ≤ 0.001) | (−0.257, p = 0.104) |
I enjoyed the class content. | (12, N = 41, p ≤ 0.001) | (−0.215, p = 0.177) |
My instructors were knowledgeable about disability. | (15, N = 41, p ≤ 0.001) | (−0.248, p = 0.119) |
My instructors used appropriate vocabulary and language when giving class instruction. | (6, N = 41, p ≤ 0.001) | (−0.080, p = 0.619) |
I was frustrated when my instructors played videos in class instead of providing live instruction. | (9, N = 40, p = 0.004) | (0.160, p = 0.323) |
I feel I benefitted physically from the program. | (6, N = 41, p = 0.048) | (−0.252, p = 0.112) |
I was satisfied with the virtual health program. | (9, N = 41, p = 0.006) | (−0.225, p = 0.157) |
I would recommend this program to others. | (9, N = 41, p = 0.004) | (0.034, p = 0.834) |
MENTOR●Marital Status | ||
I feel the lecture portion of nutrition classes lasted an appropriate amount of time. | (24, N = 41, p = 0.032) | (−0.151, p = 0.346) |
My online group interacted well amongst ourselves. | (24, N = 41, p = 0.046) | (−0.014, p = 0.933) |
The virtual environment was accessible. | (12, N = 41, p = 0.008) | (−0.054, p = 0.737) |
My mindfulness instructor interacted with my class other than to give out class instruction or feedback. | (30, N = 41, p = 0.006) | (−0.204, p = 0.201) |
My instructors were knowledgeable about disability. | (30, N = 41, p = 0.044) | (−0.188, p = 0.238) |
My instructors used appropriate vocabulary and language when giving class instruction. | (12, N = 41, p = 0.011) | (−0.185, p = 0.247) |
I often felt fatigued by the effort of participating in the Zoom meetings. | (24, N = 41, p = 0.023) | (0.102, p = 0.527) |
I was satisfied with the virtual health program. | (18, N = 41, p = 0.003) | (−0.070, p = 0.663) |
I would recommend this program to others. | (18, N = 41, p = 0.025) | (−0.293, p = 0.063) |
GROWTH●Disability | ||
The program was disability friendly. | (2, N = 12, p = 0.027) | (−0.771, p = 0.003) * |
I enjoyed the virtual teaching component. | (6, N = 13), p ≤ 0.001) | (−0.839, p ≤ 0.001) * |
I enjoyed the virtual participant interaction. | (6, N = 12, p = 0.008) | (−0.664, p = 0.019) * |
The virtual environment was accessible. | (4, N = 12, p = 0.016) | (−0.393, p = 0.207) |
Participating in the virtual health program made me feel optimistic about my health. | (6, N = 12, p = 0.029) | (−0.548, p = 0.065) |
My instructor interacted with my class other than to give verbal instruction. | (6, N = 12, p = 0.008) | (−0.695, p = 0.012) * |
The class content was modified or adapted to my disability or comfortability. | (6, N = 12, p = 0.008) | (−0.741, p = 0.006) * |
My instructors were knowledgeable about disability. | (6, N = 12, p = 0.008) | (−0.741, p = 0.006) * |
I had a positive relationship with my virtual instructors. | (2, N = 12, p = 0.002) | (−0.996, p ≤ 0.001) * |
My instructors used appropriate vocabulary and language when giving class instruction. | (4, N = 12, p ≤ 0.001) | (−1.000, p = 0.001) * |
I was frustrated my instructors played videos in class instead of providing live instruction. | (6, N = 12, p = 0.029) | (0.471, p = 0.122) |
I appreciated my virtual health instructors. | (2, N = 12, p = 0.027) | (−0.771, p = 0.003) * |
I was frustrated by other participants in my class. | (2, N = 12, p = 0.027) | (−0.771, p = 0.003) * |
I was satisfied with the virtual health program. | (6, N = 12, p ≤ 0.001) | (−0.776, p = 0.003) * |
GROWTH●Age | ||
I had a positive relationship with my virtual instructors. | (2, N = 12, p = 0.027) | (−0.632, p = 0.027) * |
I would like for my support network to be involved in the program with me. | (6, N = 12, p ≤ 0.001) | (−0.776, p = 0.003) * |
GROWTH●Education # | ||
The virtual environment was accessible. | (6, N = 12, p = 0.008) | (−0.658, p = 0.020) * |
My instructors were knowledgeable about disability. | (9, N = 12, p = 0.040) | (−0.351, p = 0.263) |
My online group interacted well amongst ourselves. | (2, N = 12, p = 0.050) | (−0.612, p = 0.035) * |
I would like for my support network to be involved in the program with me. | (2, N = 6, p = 0.050) | (−0.816, p = 0.001) * |
GROWTH●Race # | ||
The program was disability friendly. | (3, N = 12, p = 0.007) | (−0.812, p = 0.001) * |
I enjoyed the virtual participant interaction. | (9, N = 12, p = 0.035) | (−0.843, p ≤ 0.001) * |
The class content was modified or adapted to my disability or comfortability. | (9, N = 12, p = 0.009) | (−0.830, p ≤ 0.001) * |
I enjoyed the class content. | (9, N = 12, p = 0.007) | (−0.899, p ≤ 0.001) * |
I had a positive relationship with my virtual instructors. | (3, N = 12, p = 0.007) | (−0.698, p = 0.012) * |
I appreciated my virtual health instructors. | (3, N = 12, p = 0.038) | (−0.691, p = 0.013) * |
I was frustrated by other participants in my class. | (3, N = 12, p = 0.038) | (−0.691, p = 0.013) * |
I was satisfied with the virtual health program. | (9, N = 12, p = 0.025) | (−0.854, p ≤ 0.001) * |
I would recommend this program to others. | (6, N = 12, p = 0.020) | (−0.812, p = 0.001) * |
GROWTH●Marital Status | ||
My instructors interacted with my class other than to give out class instruction or feedback. | (12, N = 12, p = 0.018) | (−0.533, p = 0.074) |
The class content was modified or adapted to my disability or comfortability. | (12, N = 12, p = 0.016) | (−0.364, p = 0.245) |
I did not feel like I needed a one-on-one appointment with my instructor. | (8, N = 12, p = 0.034) | (−0.280, p = 0.377) |
I would recommend this program to others. | (8, N = 12, p = 0.022) | (−0.245, p = 0.442) |
SOSE●Age | ||
I made a commitment to my fellow participants. | (2, N = 6, p = 0.050) | (−0.775, p = 0.070) |
My instructors were knowledgeable about disability. | (2, N = 6, p = 0.050) | (0.775, p = 0.070) |
I appreciated my virtual health instructors. | (2, N = 6, p = 0.050) | (0.775, p = 0.070) |
I appreciated the virtual health delivery. | (2, N = 6, p = 0.050)) | (0.775, p = 0.070) |
I was frustrated by my disability during the program. | (2, N = 6, p = 0.050) | (0.775, p = 0.070) |
I would like for my support network to be involved in the program with me. | (2, N = 6, p = 0.050) | (0.000, p = 1.000) |
SOSE●Education # | ||
I would like for my support network to be involved in the program with me. | (2, N = 6, p = 0.050) | (−0.866, p = 0.026) * |
SOSE●Race | ||
The program was disability friendly. | (2, N = 6, p = 0.050) | (−0.707, p = 0.116) |
I enjoyed the virtual teaching component. | (2, N = 6, p = 0.050) | (−0.707, p = 0.116) |
I enjoyed the virtual participant interaction. | (2, N = 6, p = 0.050) | (−0.707, p = 0.116) |
Program | Post-Program GLTEQ Completion | GLTEQ Scores |
---|---|---|
MENTOR | 1–6 months (n = 22, 59%) | Active: n = 13, 59% Moderately active: n = 7, 32% Sedentary: n = 2, 9% |
7–12 months (n = 4, 11%) | Active: n = 4, 100% | |
13–24 months (n = 11, 30%) | Active: n = 8, 73% Moderately active: n = 2, 18% Sedentary: n = 1, 9% | |
GROWTH | 2–6 months (n = 5, 14%) | Active: n = 4, 80% Moderately active: n = 1, 20% |
7–11 months (n = 3, 8%) | Active: n = 2, 67% Sedentary: n = 1, 33% | |
SOSE | 4–10 months (n = 1, 2.7%) | Active: n = 1, 100% |
11–16 months (n = 4, 31%) | Active: n = 4, 100% |
Question: | Program: | Quote: |
---|---|---|
| MENTOR | “I felt that the lecture portion was too long”.—MM23 “Exercise was extremely long”.—MM39 |
| MENTOR | “For the blind or visually impaired it was difficult”.—MM3 |
| MENTOR | “Teachers were not disabled so I did not feel they could understand the reality of a disability”.—MM3 |
GROWTH | “Better messaging on activities; i.e., go shopping, take a pic in a 24 h period. I assume many others depend on transportation based on some else’s schedule. It would be helpful to have some time to absorb new content each week prior to action. The overall program is fantastic, a little adjustment would make it super fantastic”.—MM17 | |
| MENTOR | “For their benefit and to share/encourage one another in the journey…especially after the program ends. We could speak the same language and have the same base of understanding and help each other with our goals”.—MM37 |
GROWTH | “Makes it more fun”.—MM13 | |
SOSE | “To see what I do”.—MM34 | |
| MENTOR | “Now I have a routine that is solid”.—MM17 |
GROWTH | “Knowing my limitations”.—MM16 | |
SOSE | “I exercise regularly. I take less medication. I have improved core strength. I use the manual wheelchair less. I have maintained a weight loss of 34.7 pounds”.—MM6 | |
| MENTOR | “Taught me great coping techniques”.—MM33 |
GROWTH | “More aware”.—MM5 | |
SOSE | “Helped me stop overthinking”.—MM7 | |
| MENTOR | “I was able to express my spiritual views and learn from others”.—MM6 |
GROWTH | “Understanding myself”.—MM16 | |
SOSE | “It helped me deal with my grief losing my mother…”—MM7 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mintz, M.; Oster, R.A.; Wilroy, J.; Rimmer, J.H. Factors Affecting Online Health Promotion Program Adherence Among People with Disabilities. Disabilities 2025, 5, 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5010016
Mintz M, Oster RA, Wilroy J, Rimmer JH. Factors Affecting Online Health Promotion Program Adherence Among People with Disabilities. Disabilities. 2025; 5(1):16. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5010016
Chicago/Turabian StyleMintz, Madison, Robert A. Oster, Jereme Wilroy, and James H. Rimmer. 2025. "Factors Affecting Online Health Promotion Program Adherence Among People with Disabilities" Disabilities 5, no. 1: 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5010016
APA StyleMintz, M., Oster, R. A., Wilroy, J., & Rimmer, J. H. (2025). Factors Affecting Online Health Promotion Program Adherence Among People with Disabilities. Disabilities, 5(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5010016