Social Cognitive Theories and Electronic Health Design: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are several social cognitive theories (SCTs) and models that support platform design in electronic health (eHealth) promotion trials. The rationale for this scoping review was to determine how social design features (informational aid, expressive support, gaming, and tailored content) are used to promote self-efficacy, engagement, knowledge, and behavior change. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to review a broad spectrum of digital health interventions in the literature seeking trials that use SCTs for the design of eHealth applications. METHODS: The author conducted a systematic scoping review of 161 Web-based health interventions from published randomized clinical trials using 1 or more tools to address the social cognitive determinants in their website design from January 2006 to April 2016. An iterative approach was used in the selection of studies and data extraction. The studies were analyzed for quality and coded for type of social design features employed. RESULTS: Expressive interaction tools were found in 48.6% (54/111) of studies categorized as a strong recommendation by the Joanna Briggs Institute criteria. Overall, less than half of the studies addressed participant social support and motivational needs (43.8%). The vast majority of studies (100%) relied on the use of the Web for delivery of informational aid and tailored content for the individual participant (75.9%). CONCLUSIONS: This review fills a research gap by linking social theory to Web strategy to improve the impact and sustainability of eHealth interventions. A Digital Health Intervention Model was developed to provide a framework to enhance future Web-based health intervention design and execution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".