Persuasive Systems Design Trends in Coronary Heart Disease Management: Scoping Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Behavior change support systems (BCSSs) have the potential to help people maintain healthy lifestyles and aid in the self-management of coronary heart disease (CHD). The Persuasive Systems Design (PSD) model is a framework for designing and evaluating systems designed to support lifestyle modifications and health behavior change using information and communication technology. However, evidence for the underlying design principles behind BCSSs for CHD has not been extensively reported in the literature. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to identify existing health BCSSs for CHD, report the characteristics of these systems, and describe the persuasion context and persuasive design principles of these systems based on the PSD framework. METHODS: Using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, 3 digital databases (Scopus, Web of Science, and MEDLINE) were searched between 2010 to 2022. The major inclusion criteria for studies were in accordance with the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) approach. RESULTS: Searches conducted in the databases identified 1195 papers, among which 30 were identified as eligible for the review. The most interesting characteristics of the BCSSs were the predominant use of primary task support principles, followed by dialogue support and credibility support and the sparing use of social support principles. Theories of behavior change such as the Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Efficacy Theory were used often to underpin these systems. However, significant trends in the use of persuasive system features on par with behavior change theories could not be established from the reviewed studies. This points to the fact that there is still no theoretical consensus on how best to design interventions to promote behavior change in patients with CHD. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight key software features for designing BCSSs for the prevention and management of CHD. We encourage designers of behavior change interventions to evaluate the techniques that contributed to the success of the intervention. Future research should focus on evaluating the effectiveness of the interventions, persuasive design principles, and behavior change theories using research methodologies such as meta-analysis.
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 | 0.073 | 0.224 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".