Persuasive System Design Principles and Behavior Change Techniques to Stimulate Motivation and Adherence in Electronic Health Interventions to Support Weight Loss Maintenance: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maintaining weight after weight loss is a major health challenge, and eHealth (electronic health) solutions may be a way to meet this challenge. Application of behavior change techniques (BCTs) and persuasive system design (PSD) principles in eHealth development may contribute to the design of technologies that positively influence behavior and motivation to support the sustainable health behavior change needed. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to identify BCTs and PSD principles applied in eHealth interventions to support weight loss and weight loss maintenance, as well as techniques and principles applied to stimulate motivation and adherence for long-term weight loss maintenance. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE (including PubMed), EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and AMED, from January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2018. Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology was applied. Publications on eHealth interventions were included if focusing on weight loss or weight loss maintenance, in combination with motivation or adherence and behavior change. RESULTS: The search identified 317 publications, of which 45 met the inclusion criteria. Of the 45 publications, 11 (24%) focused on weight loss maintenance, and 34 (76%) focused on weight loss. Mobile phones were the most frequently used technology (28/45, 62%). Frequently used wearables were activity trackers (14/45, 31%), as well as other monitoring technologies such as wireless or digital scales (8/45, 18%). All included publications were anchored in behavior change theories. Feedback and monitoring and goals and planning were core behavior change technique clusters applied in the majority of included publications. Social support and associations through prompts and cues to support and maintain new habits were more frequently used in weight loss maintenance than weight loss interventions. In both types of interventions, frequently applied persuasive principles were self-monitoring, goal setting, and feedback. Tailoring, reminders, personalization, and rewards were additional principles frequently applied in weight loss maintenance interventions. Results did not reveal an ideal combination of techniques or principles to stimulate motivation, adherence, and weight loss maintenance. However, the most frequently mentioned individual techniques and principles applied to stimulate motivation were, personalization, simulation, praise, and feedback, whereas associations were frequently mentioned to stimulate adherence. eHealth interventions that found significant effects for weight loss maintenance all applied self-monitoring, feedback, goal setting, and shaping knowledge, combined with a human social support component to support healthy behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first review examining key BCTs and PSD principles applied in weight loss maintenance interventions compared with those of weight loss interventions. This review identified several techniques and principles applied to stimulate motivation and adherence. Future research should aim to examine which eHealth design combinations can be the most effective in support of long-term behavior change and weight loss maintenance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".