Synergizing the Behavior Change Wheel and a Cocreative Approach to Design a Physical Activity Intervention for Adolescents and Young Adults With Intellectual Disabilities: Development Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: There is a need for physical activity promotion interventions in adolescents and young adults with intellectual disabilities. Current interventions have shown limited effectiveness, which may be attributed to the absence of theory and a population-specific development. Combining a planning model (including theory) and cocreation with the target audience during intervention development could potentially address this gap. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to report the systematic development of the Move it, Move ID! intervention by describing how the 8 different steps of the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW) were applied and present the results that emerged from those steps. In doing so, the (theoretical) content of the intervention is described in detail. METHODS: A total of 23 adolescents and young adults (aged 14-22 years) with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities were designated as cocreators of the intervention. Across 2 groups, 6 similar cocreation sessions were organized in each. The content and sequence of the sessions were structured to align with the 8 steps of the BCW. All sessions were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Both a deductive (ie, steps of the BCW) and inductive (ie, resonating the voice of the participants) analysis approach were applied specifically focusing on identifying and describing the findings within each of the BCW steps. RESULTS: After behavioral analysis (steps 1-4), 10 intervention goals were chosen and linked to Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation-Behavior components (theory within the BCW) that needed to be addressed. Psychological capability, social opportunity, and reflective motivation were emphasized as the first targets to focus on. A key finding was the urge for real-life social connectedness and social integration, which makes the social component as part of physical activity a central theme to focus on within intervention development. Judgments on the most suitable intervention functions (step 5) and behavior change techniques (step 7) were explained. When discussing the mode of delivery of the intervention (step 8), it was underscored that solely relying on a mobile health app would not fulfill participants' social needs. Hence, the chosen intervention adopts a dyadic approach in which young individuals with intellectual disabilities are matched with peers without intellectual disabilities to engage in physical activities together, with a mobile app playing a supportive role in this partnership. CONCLUSIONS: The transparent description of the development process highlights why certain intervention components and behavior change techniques were chosen and how they are intertwined by means of the selected intervention design. This paper provides a detailed blueprint for practitioners wanting to integrate the BCW and its associated behavior change techniques, in combination with actively involving the target group, into their intervention development for people with intellectual disabilities.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».