Synergizing the Behavior Change Wheel and a Cocreative Approach to Design a Physical Activity Intervention for Adolescents and Young Adults With Intellectual Disabilities: Development Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a need for physical activity promotion interventions in adolescents and young adults with intellectual disabilities. Current interventions have shown limited effectiveness, which may be attributed to the absence of theory and a population-specific development. Combining a planning model (including theory) and cocreation with the target audience during intervention development could potentially address this gap. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to report the systematic development of the Move it, Move ID! intervention by describing how the 8 different steps of the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW) were applied and present the results that emerged from those steps. In doing so, the (theoretical) content of the intervention is described in detail. METHODS: A total of 23 adolescents and young adults (aged 14-22 years) with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities were designated as cocreators of the intervention. Across 2 groups, 6 similar cocreation sessions were organized in each. The content and sequence of the sessions were structured to align with the 8 steps of the BCW. All sessions were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Both a deductive (ie, steps of the BCW) and inductive (ie, resonating the voice of the participants) analysis approach were applied specifically focusing on identifying and describing the findings within each of the BCW steps. RESULTS: After behavioral analysis (steps 1-4), 10 intervention goals were chosen and linked to Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation-Behavior components (theory within the BCW) that needed to be addressed. Psychological capability, social opportunity, and reflective motivation were emphasized as the first targets to focus on. A key finding was the urge for real-life social connectedness and social integration, which makes the social component as part of physical activity a central theme to focus on within intervention development. Judgments on the most suitable intervention functions (step 5) and behavior change techniques (step 7) were explained. When discussing the mode of delivery of the intervention (step 8), it was underscored that solely relying on a mobile health app would not fulfill participants' social needs. Hence, the chosen intervention adopts a dyadic approach in which young individuals with intellectual disabilities are matched with peers without intellectual disabilities to engage in physical activities together, with a mobile app playing a supportive role in this partnership. CONCLUSIONS: The transparent description of the development process highlights why certain intervention components and behavior change techniques were chosen and how they are intertwined by means of the selected intervention design. This paper provides a detailed blueprint for practitioners wanting to integrate the BCW and its associated behavior change techniques, in combination with actively involving the target group, into their intervention development for people with intellectual disabilities.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".