Not many of us are lucky enough to be an expert in both behaviour change and website or app development. For me, this is the ideal (probably unrealistic) dream. In the absence of this prized combination of talents, it’s important to work out how you will create your online intervention (or rather, who will).

Here, I will outline three potential solutions:

1. Doing it yourself (yes, it is possible)
2. Hiring an external software development company (a personally tried and tested method, from which I have a lot of experience to share)
3. Working in collaboration with others in your institution (this is my ideal dream, but I haven’t quite worked out the logistics of it yet!)

Doing it yourself

It is possible to develop your own online intervention, without being an expert in software coding. A team of researchers have produced a genius solution called LifeGuide, which offers researchers (or anyone, really) a platform to develop personalised, tailored health interventions, which can then be used and reproduced by others. A basic template is provided for academics to work with, which prevents the need to start from scratch. It includes templates for common tools that intervention developers use (e.g. goal setting, email and text prompts, chat forums), as well as tools to support the research needed to test the intervention (e.g. a randomisation system, a questionnaire platform). Some minimal expertise is required to use it, but training and workshops are available.

This provides an excellent, low-cost way of developing an intervention, that the developer then has full control over. A disadvantage may be that the use of set templates means it may not be as ‘flashy’ or dynamic as an intervention developed from scratch (I must note: I haven’t used it personally, but I have viewed various interventions developed on it). Currently, it only develops website-based interventions, but the team are currently developing a similar platform for smartphone apps.

Hiring an external software development company

This is the method that we have traditionally used in our department. This provides the advantage of working with a creative team, who can develop a very professional looking website or app. They will most likely have a high level of knowledge about tech, and about what is potentially possible for your intervention. This can be very useful at the development stage, when coming up with engaging intervention features — the more creative minds, the better!

There are, of course, disadvantages. Firstly, the cost: this is the most expensive of the three options, and it will most likely cost tens of thousands of pounds (especially if you also want your developers to create something to support your research, such as data collection and storage). Also, cost may limit what you can do — once you have spent your allocated budget, you will need to pay the developers for any further work. To avoid this, it’s helpful to ask for a good content management system (CMS) from the start — this will give you control over the content of the website/app, and you can easily edit it, without using the developers as a middle man.

Secondly, there can be communication difficulties. Development companies are specialists in tech; you may not be. It can therefore sometimes feel like they’re talking a different language! Having a good project manager can reduce this problem; having someone on your (academic) team who has some understanding of tech can be even better.

These communication difficulties can work both ways: it can be difficult to find a software development company who are experienced in developing for academic research projects. They therefore may not be aware of the intricacies and requirements of research processes (e.g. randomisation). If you’re conducting research with NHS patients, you will also need to make sure they are working to ethical and information governance standards (I advise setting out these requirements early on).

If you choose to go with this option, you’ll need to carefully select your developer. Your institution will most likely have procedures in place for getting people to tender for the work — ask your procurement or research office for advice. At the stage of tendering, it helps to have some idea of what you want to do. This point is when it’s most important to seek advice from someone who knows about tech (try asking someone within your institution). Also, you’ll need to seek advice regarding who owns the intellectual property of anything developed.

Having been through the process of tendering for a developer, I am well aware of what a long and difficult process it can be. I’m happy to pass on my advice if you get in touch (if there’s enough interest, I may consider a post solely about this — although I can’t promise it will be riveting!).

Collaborating with others in your institution

In my eyes, the ideal solution is to work with others in your institution, who have the expertise that you don’t. This should start at the grant application stage, finding collaborators who are happy to be on board and do the development work for you. Both parties gain from this situation — you offer the expertise in health behaviour and the content, they offer the technical expertise and input. I haven’t done this myself, and so I can’t really advise on the best way to go about it. However, in theory, I would recommend it. You may still have some of the tech/non-tech communication difficulties, but at least you are all singing from the same hymn sheet with regard to research processes and goals. I’m a strong believer in the importance of interdisciplinary working. I’m keen to seek out academics in computer science with an interest in eHealth, to foster collaborations (or at least work out how they might best work). If this if you, please get in touch!