Using Intervention Mapping and Behavior Change Techniques to Develop a Digital Intervention for Self-Management in Stroke: Development Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Digital therapeutics, such as interventions provided via smartphones or the internet, have been proposed as promising solutions to support self-management in persons with chronic conditions. However, the evidence supporting self-management interventions through technology in stroke is scarce, and the intervention development processes are often not well described, creating challenges in explaining why and how the intervention would work. OBJECTIVE: This study describes a specific use case of using intervention mapping (IM) and the taxonomy of behavior change techniques (BCTs) in designing a digital intervention to manage chronic symptoms and support daily life participation in people after stroke. IM is an implementation science framework used to bridge the gap between theories and practice to ensure that the intervention can be implemented in real-world settings. The taxonomy of BCTs consists of a set of active ingredients designed to change self-management behaviors. METHODS: We used the first 4 steps of the IM process to develop a technology-supported self-management intervention, interactive Self-Management Augmented by Rehabilitation Technologies (iSMART), adapted from a face-to-face stroke-focused psychoeducation program. Planning group members were involved in adapting the intervention. They also completed 3 implementation measures to assess the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of iSMART. RESULTS: In step 1, we completed a needs assessment consisting of assembling a planning group to codevelop the intervention, conducting telephone surveys of people after stroke (n=125) to identify service needs, and performing a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to examine evidence of the effectiveness of digital self-management interventions to improve patient outcomes. We identified activity scheduling, symptom management, stroke prevention, access to care resources, and cognitive enhancement training as key service needs after a stroke. The review suggested that digital self-management interventions, especially those using cognitive behavioral theory, effectively reduce depression, anxiety, and fatigue and enhance self-efficacy in neurological disorders. Step 2 identified key determinants, objectives, and strategies for self-management in iSMART, including knowledge, behavioral regulation, skills, self-efficacy, motivation, negative and positive affect, and social and environmental support. In step 3, we generated the intervention components underpinned by appropriate BCTs. In step 4, we developed iSMART with the planning group members. Especially, iSMART simplified the original psychoeducation program and added 2 new components: SMS text messaging and behavioral coaching, intending to increase the uptake by people after stroke. iSMART was found to be acceptable (mean score 4.63, SD 0.38 out of 5), appropriate (mean score 4.63, SD 0.38 out of 5), and feasible (mean score 4.58, SD 0.34 out of 5). CONCLUSIONS: We describe a detailed example of using IM and the taxonomy of BCTs for designing and developing a digital intervention to support people after stroke in managing chronic symptoms and maintaining active participation in daily life.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».