MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404368587 · doi:10.2196/60559

A Digital Behavior Change Intervention for Health Promotion for Adults in Midlife: Protocol for a Multidimensional Assessment Study

2024· article· en· W4404368587 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dagmar Soleymani, Dominique Bertrand, Rémi Gagnayre

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth promotioneHealthGerontologyDisadvantagedHealth interventionPsychological interventionPopulationIntervention mappingIntervention (counseling)MedicineBehavior changeProtocol (science)PsychologyPublic healthApplied psychologyEnvironmental healthHealth careNursingSocial psychologyAlternative medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To support lifelong health promotion and disease prevention, Santé publique France studied the methodology for building a social marketing scheme with a digital intervention targeting middle-aged adults, specifically socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. The digital intervention aims to encourage people aged 40-55 years to look after their health in the short and medium terms by adopting small actions relating to 8 health determinants: nutrition, physical activity, smoking, alcohol, stress, cognitive health, sleep, and environmental health. In the long term, the intervention intends to prevent frailty and reduce the burden of multimorbidities in older age, particularly for lower socioeconomic groups. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to measure behavior changes among registered users of the future website. The protocol assesses the impact of the website based on users' implementation of small actions relating to the 8 health determinants. Specifically, it intends to evaluate the website's performance in terms of engaging a specific population, triggering behavior change, raising awareness about a multifactorial approach to health, and encouraging user interaction with the website's resources. METHODS: The methodology is based on clinical assessments developed alongside the website according to the functionalities offered to registered users in their personalized space. The assessment tool design draws on logic models for digital interventions, and their consistency for digital applications is verified. The target audience is clearly defined from the outset. The protocol sets out a 3-step assessment: upon registration, after 3 weeks of use, and after 10 weeks of use (end of assessment). Users are divided into 2 groups (socioeconomically disadvantaged users and others) to characterize differences and make corrections. The protocol uses a mixed assessment approach based on website traffic and user login data. Specific and identifiable behavior changes are documented by monitoring the same individuals from T0 to T2, using verbatim comments to classify them into profiles and conducting semistructured individual interviews with a sample of users. RESULTS: The protocol creates a multidimensional assessment of digital intervention, showing that during a given timeline, interactions with users can reveal their capabilities, opportunities, and motivations to adopt healthy lifestyles. The protocol's principles were integrated into the development of a personal account to assess users' behavior changes. Given the delayed launch of the website, no recruitment or effects analysis of the protocol took place. CONCLUSIONS: As no multidimensional assessment protocol is currently available for digital behavior change interventions, our methods reveal that the different framework stages can strengthen the effect measurement, consolidate the choice of assumptions used within the logic model and steer the digital intervention toward action while reducing the burden of information. The suitability of the assessment protocol remains to be evaluated given the delayed launch of the website. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/60559.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.415
GPT teacher head0.653
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207