Antifragile Behavior Change Through Digital Health Behavior Change Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital health behavior change interventions (DHBCIs) offer users accessible support, yet their promise to improve health behaviors at scale has not been met. One reason for this unmet potential may be a failure to offer users support that is tailored to their personal characteristics and goals. We apply the concept of antifragility to propose how DHBCIs could be better designed to support diverse users' behavior change journeys. We first define antifragility as a feature of an individual's relationship to a particular challenge such that if one is antifragile to a challenge, one is well positioned to benefit from facing that challenge. Second, we introduce antifragile behavior change to describe behavior change processes that leverage person-specific antifragilities to maximize benefits and minimize risk in the behavior change process. While most existing behavior change models focus on improving one's motivation and ability to face challenges, antifragile behavior change complements these models by helping to select challenges that are most likely to produce desired outcomes. Next, we propose three principles by which DHBCIs can help users to develop antifragile behavior change strategies: providing personalized guidance, embracing variance and exploration in choosing behaviors, and prioritizing user agency. Finally, we offer an example of how a DHBCI could be designed to support antifragile behavior change.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".