Content Evaluation of the Inclusive eHealth Guide: How to Develop Interventions for People with a Lower Socioeconomic Position?

Isra Al-Dhahir^1*Linda D. Breeman¹Jasper S. Faber^2*Jobke Wentzel³Rita J. G. van den Berg-Emons^4,5Jos J. Kraal²Veronica R. Janssen⁶Roderik A. Kraaijenhagen^7,8Valentijn T. Visch²Niels H. Chavannes^10,9Andrea W.M. Evers^1,11

• ¹Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands
• ²Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
• ³Department of Health Care and Social Work, University of Applied Sciences Windesheim, Zwolle, Netherlands
• ⁴Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
• ⁵Capri Cardiac Rehabilitation, Rotterdam, Netherlands
• ⁶Department of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, South Holland, Netherlands
• ⁷Vital10, Amsterdam, Netherlands
• ⁸NDDO Institute for Prevention and Early Diagnostics (NIPED), Amsterdam, Netherlands
• ⁹Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre,, Leiden, Netherlands
• ¹⁰National eHealth Living Lab, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands
• ¹¹Medical Delta, Leiden University, Delft University of Technology, Erasmus University, Delft, Netherlands

Objectives: eHealth interventions favor those with higher socio-economic positions (SEPs). This can widen disparities, as people with lower SEPs may lack resources and face digital or financial barriers, making tailored solutions necessary. widening disparities as those with lower SEPs might lack necessary resources and face digital and financial constraints, suggesting a need for tailored solutionThis study evaluates professionals' perceptions of the Inclusive eHealth Guide (IeG) regarding its content. ,The aiming was to ensure it meets the needs of professionals and the targeted lower SEP demographic, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of eHealth interventions.Methods: This mixed-method study used qualitative research through semi-structured interviews and the think-aloud method with 13 professionals involved in eight different eHealth lifestyle interventions using the eHealth guide. Quantitative feedback was obtained through a survey with evaluative multiple-choice questions. Participants evaluated the IeG at various stages., They identifiedying positive aspects and points for improvement, and offering provided recommendations for the guide's content and structure.Results: Participants valued the IeG's practicality and comprehensiveness, noting its usefulness in developing accessible eHealth solutions for populations with lower SEP. They suggested improving content clarity, expanding informational depth, and refining the guide's structure.Conclusions: The IeG has potential as a valuable tool for professionals developing eHealth interventions for lower SEP populations. Continuous refinement is crucial to ensure the guide remains relevant and effective, contributing to reducing health disparities.