Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36920442›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Making Sense of Theories, Models, and Frameworks in Digital Health Behavior Change Design: Qualitative Descriptive Study.

Paula Voorheis, Aunima R Bhuiya, Kerry Kuluski, Quynh Pham, Jeremy Petch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Paula VoorheisInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9169-1422
Aunima R BhuiyaInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3975-3782
Kerry KuluskiInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6377-6653
Quynh PhamCentre for Digital Therapeutics, Techna Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0540-4181
Jeremy PetchInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1614-1046

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital health interventions are increasingly being designed to support health behaviors. Although digital health interventions informed by behavioral science theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) are more likely to be effective than those designed without them, design teams often struggle to use these evidence-informed tools. Until now, little work has been done to clarify the ways in which behavioral science TMFs can add value to digital health design.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to better understand how digital health design leaders select and use TMFs in design practice. The questions that were addressed included how do design leaders perceive the value of TMFs in digital health design, what considerations do design leaders make when selecting and applying TMFs, and what do design leaders think is needed in the future to advance the utility of TMFs in digital health design?

methodsThis study used a qualitative description design to understand the experiences and perspectives of digital health design leaders. The participants were identified through purposive and snowball sampling. Semistructured interviews were conducted via Zoom software. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed using Otter.ai software. Furthermore, 3 researchers coded a sample of interview transcripts and confirmed the coding strategy. One researcher completed the qualitative analysis using a codebook thematic analysis approach.

resultsDesign leaders had mixed opinions on the value of behavioral science TMFs in digital health design. Leaders suggested that TMFs added the most value when viewed as a starting point rather than the final destination for evidence-informed design. Specifically, these tools added value when they acted as a gateway drug to behavioral science, supported health behavior conceptualization, were balanced with expert knowledge and user-centered design principles, were complementary to existing design methods, and supported both individual- and systems-level thinking. Design leaders also felt that there was a considerable nuance in selecting the most value-adding TMFs. Considerations should be made regarding their source, appropriateness, complexity, accessibility, adaptability, evidence base, purpose, influence, audience, fit with team expertise, fit with team culture, and fit with external pressures. Design leaders suggested multiple opportunities to advance the use of TMFs. These included improving TMF reporting, design, and accessibility, as well as improving design teams' capacity to use TMFs appropriately in practice.

conclusionsWhen designing a digital health behavior change intervention, using TMFs can help design teams to systematically integrate behavioral insights. The future of digital health behavior change design demands an easier way for designers to integrate evidence-based TMFs into practice.

Indexed as

AttitudeHealth BehaviorEmotionsHumansQualitative Researchbehavioral sciencebehavior changedigital healthframeworkshealth behaviormobile healthmodelstheories

Identifiers

PMID36920442
PMCPMC10131681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.