Changes in methods from the pilot to the next phase of the study.
might increase recall
RECRUITMENT
On the basis of the experience from the pilot, and with regard to other online lifestyle interventions [The pilot study was successful and beneficial. Its results indicated that this was enough time to detect changes in the Design for Wellness score.We hoped to witness a minimal dropout rate in a 6-week intervention. In the pilot study, only 1 participant was lost to follow-up.Once we started with recruitment, we needed to do it quickly as we wanted all participants to enter the Facebook group at the same time and we did not want to lose the participants we recruited early on. It would be easier to recruit participants for a 6-week study than for a 3-month study. Furthermore, in a time of COVID-19, we assumed that the participants would have more reservations about committing to a long-term study as there were uncertainties regarding future plans.A long-term intervention is harder to replicate. Thus, a 6-week intervention instead of a 3-motnth intervention increased our chances of becoming a role model for other wellness interventions.Changing the duration of the intervention to 6 weeks meant that we collected only pre- and postintervention data. We did not ask the intervention group participants to answer midintervention questionnaires, as was initially planned, as it would be unnecessary, would burden the participants, and might increase recall bias.Participant inclusion criteria: in the pilot study, the cutoff for participation was mothers of children aged ≤18 years. After the pilot was over, we received feedback from mothers of teenagers indicating that the intervention was more suitable for mothers of young children as parents of adolescents deal with different issues. Therefore, in the RCT, we recruited only mothers of children aged ≤10 years.