A Digital Lifestyle Coach (E-Supporter 1.0) to Support People With Type 2 Diabetes: Participatory Development Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A healthy lifestyle, including regular physical activity and a healthy diet, is becoming increasingly important in the treatment of chronic diseases. eHealth interventions that incorporate behavior change techniques (BCTs) and dynamic tailoring strategies could effectively support a healthy lifestyle. E-Supporter 1.0 is an eCoach designed to support physical activity and a healthy diet in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). OBJECTIVE: This paper aimed to describe the systematic development of E-Supporter 1.0. METHODS: Our systematic design process consisted of 3 phases. The definition phase included the selection of the target group and formulation of intervention objectives, and the identification of behavioral determinants based on which BCTs were selected to apply in the intervention. In the development phase, intervention content was developed by specifying tailoring variables, intervention options, and decision rules. In the last phase, E-Supporter 1.0 integrated in the Diameter app was evaluated using a usability test in 9 people with T2D to assess intervention usage and acceptability. RESULTS: The main intervention objectives were to stimulate light to moderate-vigorous physical activities or adherence to the Dutch dietary guidelines in people with T2D. The selection of behavioral determinants was informed by the health action process approach and theories explaining behavior maintenance. BCTs were included to address relevant behavioral determinants (eg, action control, self-efficacy, and coping planning). Development of the intervention resulted in 3 types of intervention options, consisting of motivational messages, behavioral feedback, and tailor-made supportive exercises. On the basis of IF-THEN rules, intervention options could be tailored to, among others, type of behavioral goal and (barriers to) goal achievement. Data on these variables could be collected using app data, activity tracker data, and daily ecological momentary assessments. Usability testing revealed that user experiences were predominantly positive, despite some problems in the fixed delivery of content. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic development approach resulted in a theory-based and dynamically tailored eCoach. Future work should focus on expanding intervention content to other chronic diseases and lifestyle behaviors, enhancing the degree of tailoring and evaluating intervention effects on acceptability, use, and cost-effectiveness.
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 | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".