CONSORT-EHEALTH Checklist V1.6.2 Report

1b-i) Key features/functionalities/components of the intervention and comparator in the METHODS section of the ABSTRACT Subitem 1b-i is considered such an essential part of randomized trials that key features of interventions and control conditions should be routinely reported such as "The web-based stress intervention was fully automated and consisted of 13 sessions over one month. The controls were informed that they would get access to the intervention after the final data collection." 1b-ii) Level of human involvement in the METHODS section of the ABSTRACT Item 1b-ii was not relevant as the web-based intervention was fully automated in this study, but the level of human involvement during the intervention should be considered a pre-requisite for abstracts. 1b-iii) Open vs. closed, web-based (self-assessment) vs. face-to-face assessments in the METHODS section of the ABSTRACT The paper addresses this item in the abstract "Data were collected at baseline, one, two, and six months after intervention onset by means of online questionnaires." However, based on personal experience, the impression is that this is not at all important when reading and evaluating abstracts. 1b-iv) RESULTS section in abstract must contain use data The results section in the abstract should definitely report the number of participants enrolled or randomized to each group (e.g. "... were allocated to either the stress intervention (n = 126) or the control condition (n = 133)") and mention outcome measures (e.g. "Outcomes were stress, mindfulness, and procrastination..."). It is less important to mention use or uptake of the intervention unless evaluating adherence is the aim of the study. It seems more appropriate to report measures of use in the body text. 1b-v) CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION in abstract for negative trials The current trial showed positive results, however, no changes to primary outcomes or negative trials are also findings(!), and can in many ways be more important than positive findings. Consequently, just as researchers attempt to interpret why findings were positive, they should attempt to examine and interpret why findings were negative or did not show any signs of change (i.e. null-findings). INTRODUCTION 2a-i) Problem and the type of system/solution It is important to properly address the problem at hand (e.g. "...according to an international survey, about 75 percent of the general population in developed countries reported feeling stressed on a daily basis ..."), provide a sound theoretical background (e.g. "Temporal dimensions are clearly important to mindfulness, procrastination, and stress, although few theories explicitly specify changes that occur over time..."), and present the state-ofthe-art research (e.g. "Studies outside of the workplace setting have shown more unequivocal results. Two studies reported improved outcomes for web-based family or parental stress interventions...") on the type of system or solution under investigation (e.g. web-based interventions). However, intervention details should be provided in greater detail in the methods section. 2a-ii) Scientific background, rationale: What is known about the (type of) system A state-of-the-art presentation of what is known about the type of system that is the object of study is presented. Context for study or choice of comparator were more appropriately addressed in the methods section. METHODS 3a) CONSORT: Description of trial design (such as parallel, factorial) including allocation ratio "This study aimed to test whether treatment was predictive of subjects’ initial status and different trajectory changes in stress across time. First, it was hypothesized that subjects in the web-based stress reduction intervention would exhibit lower stress scores the end of the treatment compared to the beginning, as measured by log server registrations. Second, it was hypothesized that the intervention would reduce levels of stress as measured by online survey data over a period of six months, as compared to a control group. The control group was expected to remain at approximately the same stress level throughout the study period. Third, the effect of the intervention was expected to be, at least, partially mediated by mindfulness and procrastination over time. Finally, the effect of the intervention was examined with respect to moderating effects of gender, age, and education on the treatment effect on stress over the study period." 3b) CONSORT: Important changes to methods after trial commencement (such as eligibility criteria), with reasons No important changes to methods were made during this study. 3b-i) Bug fixes, Downtimes, Content Changes "No unexpected events occurred after the commencement of the intervention (e.g. bug fixes, downtimes, e-mail delivery service failures, content changes, or other)." 4a) CONSORT: Eligibility criteria for participants "Eligible participants were implicitly required (a) to read and understand Norwegian, (b) explicitly state that they were 18 years or older, and (c) fill in their e-mail address." 4a-i) Computer / Internet literacy At this stage in the review process, the current study did not mention computer or internet literacy. Given the fact that the study concerned a web-based intervention, recruitment took place through a social network site, and data were collected online, computer/internet literacy was an implicit eligibility criterion. This is therefore considered more of an ethical concern for discussion rather than a methodological issue.