MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226343067 · doi:10.2196/37372

Combining Persuasive System Design Principles and Behavior Change Techniques in Digital Interventions Supporting Long-term Weight Loss Maintenance: Design and Development of eCHANGE

2022· article· en· W4226343067 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rikke Aune Asbjørnsen, Jøran Hjelmesæth, Mirjam Lien Smedsrød, Jobke Wentzel, Marianne Ollivier, Matthew M. Clark, Julia E.W.C. van Gemert‐Pijnen, Lise Solberg Nes

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersSykehuset i VestfoldUniversity of Twente
KeywordsTerm (time)Psychological interventionComputer sciencePersuasive technologyProcess managementRisk analysis (engineering)Reliability engineeringPsychologyEngineeringBusinessSocial psychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Long-term weight maintenance after weight loss is challenging, and innovative solutions are required. Digital technologies can support behavior change and, therefore, have the potential to be an effective tool for weight loss maintenance. However, to create meaningful and effective digital behavior change interventions that support end user values and needs, a combination of persuasive system design (PSD) principles and behavior change techniques (BCTs) might be needed. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate how an evidence-informed digital behavior change intervention can be designed and developed by combining PSD principles and BCTs into design features to support end user values and needs for long-term weight loss maintenance. METHODS: This study presents a concept for how PSD principles and BCTs can be translated into design features by combining design thinking and Agile methods to develop and deliver an evidence-informed digital behavior change intervention aimed at supporting weight maintenance. Overall, 45 stakeholders participated in the systematic and iterative development process comprising co-design workshops, prototyping, Agile development, and usability testing. This included prospective end users (n=17, 38%; ie, people with obesity who had lost ≥8% of their weight), health care providers (n=9, 20%), healthy volunteers (n=4, 9%), a service designer (n=1, 2%), and stakeholders from the multidisciplinary research and development team (n=14, 31%; ie, software developers; digital designers; and eHealth, behavior change, and obesity experts). Stakeholder input on how to operationalize the design features and optimize the technology was examined through formative evaluation and qualitative analyses using rapid and in-depth analysis approaches. RESULTS: A total of 17 design features combining PSD principles and BCTs were identified as important to support end user values and needs based on stakeholder input during the design and development of eCHANGE, a digital intervention to support long-term weight loss maintenance. The design features were combined into 4 main intervention components: Week Plan, My Overview, Knowledge and Skills, and Virtual Coach and Smart Feedback System. To support a healthy lifestyle and continued behavior change to maintain weight, PSD principles such as tailoring, personalization, self-monitoring, reminders, rewards, rehearsal, praise, and suggestions were combined and implemented into the design features together with BCTs from the clusters of goals and planning, feedback and monitoring, social support, repetition and substitution, shaping knowledge, natural consequences, associations, antecedents, identity, and self-belief. CONCLUSIONS: Combining and implementing PSD principles and BCTs in digital interventions aimed at supporting sustainable behavior change may contribute to the design of engaging and motivating interventions in line with end user values and needs. As such, the design and development of the eCHANGE intervention can provide valuable input for future design and tailoring of evidence-informed digital interventions, even beyond digital interventions in support of health behavior change and long-term weight loss maintenance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04537988; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04537988.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicInnovative Human-Technology InteractionFrench-language works237,207