behavioural science
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

456
(FIVE YEARS 173)

H-INDEX

23
(FIVE YEARS 6)

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Voorheis ◽  
Albert Zhao ◽  
Kerry Kuluski ◽  
Quynh Pham ◽  
Ted Scott ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Mobile health (mHealth) interventions are increasingly being designed to facilitate health-related behaviour change. Integrating insights from behavioural science and design science can help support the development of more effective mHealth interventions. Behavioural Design (BD) and Design Thinking (DT) have emerged as best practice approaches in their respective fields. Until now, little work has been done to examine how BD and DT can be integrated throughout the mHealth design process. OBJECTIVE The aim of this scoping review was to map the evidence on how insights from BD and DT can be integrated to guide the design of mHealth interventions. The following questions were addressed: (1) what are the main characteristics of studies that integrate BD and DT during the mHealth design process? (2) what approaches do mHealth design teams use to integrate BD and DT during the mHealth design process? (3) what are key implementation considerations, design challenges, and future directions for integrating BD and DT during mHealth design? METHODS We identified relevant studies from MEDLINE, PSYCINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL and JMIR using search terms related to mHealth, behavioural design, and design thinking. Included articles had to clearly describe their mHealth design process and how behaviour change theories, models, frameworks, or techniques were incorporated. Two independent reviewers screened articles for inclusion and completed the data extraction. A descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS A total of 75 articles met the inclusion criteria. All studies were published between 2012 and 2021. Studies integrated BD and DT in notable ways, which we refer to as “Behavioural Design Thinking”. Five steps were followed in the “Behavioural Design Thinking” approach: (1) empathise with users and their behaviour change needs, (2) define user and behaviour change requirements, (3) ideate user-centred features and behaviour change content, (4) prototype a user-centred solution that supports behaviour change, (5) test the solution against users’ needs and for its behaviour change potential. Key challenges experienced during mHealth design included meaningfully engaging patient and public partners in the design process, translating evidence-based behaviour change techniques into actual mHealth features, and planning for how to integrate the mHealth intervention into existing clinical systems. Guidance is needed on how to conduct the design process itself, how to meaningfully engage key stakeholders, and how to operationalize behaviour change techniques in a user-friendly and context-specific way. CONCLUSIONS Best practices from BD and DT can be integrated throughout the mHealth design process to ensure that mHealth interventions are purposefully developed to effectively engage users. Although this scoping review clarified how insights from BD and DT could be integrated during mHealth design, future research is needed to identify the most effective design approaches. CLINICALTRIAL n/a


2022 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 107327482110602
Author(s):  
Juliet Usher-Smith ◽  
Christian von Wagner ◽  
Alex Ghanouni

Cancer screening programmes have a major role in reducing cancer incidence and mortality. Traditional internationally-adopted protocols have been to invite all ‘eligible individuals’ for the same test at the same frequency. However, as highlighted in Cancer Research UK’s 2020 strategic vision, there are opportunities to increase effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and reduce harms of screening programmes, by making recommendations on the basis of personalised estimates of risk. In some respects, this extends current approaches of providing more intensive levels of care outside screening programmes to individuals at very high risk due to their family history or underlying conditions. However, risk-adapted colorectal cancer screening raises a wide range of questions, not only about how best to change existing programmes but also about the psychological and behavioural effects that these changes might have. Previous studies in other settings provide some important information but remain to be tested and explored further in the context of colorectal screening. Conducting behavioural science research in parallel to clinical research will ensure that risk-adapted screening is understood and accepted by the population that it aims to serve.


Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 7
Author(s):  
Michael Vallis ◽  
Simon Bacon ◽  
Kim Corace ◽  
Keven Joyal-Desmarais ◽  
Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin ◽  
...  

Governments, public health officials and pharmaceutical companies have all mobilized resources to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns, social distancing, and personal protective behaviours have been helpful but have shut down economies and disrupted normal activities. Vaccinations protect populations from COVID-19 and allow a return to pre-pandemic ways of living. However, vaccine development, distribution and promotion have not been sufficient to ensure maximum vaccine uptake. Vaccination is an individual choice and requires acceptance of the need to be vaccinated in light of any risks. This paper presents a behavioural sciences framework to promote vaccine acceptance by addressing the complex and ever evolving landscape of COVID-19. Effective promotion of vaccine uptake requires understanding the context-specific barriers to acceptance. We present the AACTT framework (Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time) to identify the action needed to be taken, the person needed to act, the context for the action, as well as the target of the action within a timeframe. Once identified a model for identifying and overcoming barriers, called COM-B (Capability, Opportunity and Motivation lead to Behaviour), is presented. This analysis identifies issues associated with capability, opportunity and motivation to act. These frameworks can be used to facilitate action that is fluid and involves policy makers, organisational leaders as well as citizens and families.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl Hughes ◽  
Decolius Kulomo ◽  
Bestari Nyoka

While dairy production has the potential to diversify smallholder agriculture and increase incomes, there are multiple constraints. One is the consistent provision of quality feed. High protein, leguminous fodder shrubs—also referred to as Fodder Tree Technology (FTT)—can help address this constraint, yet adoption levels are generally low. Implemented in Kenya and Malawi, the Shrubs for Change (S4C) project is employing several approaches to address this situation, including those informed by behavioural science. Given that approximately 500 shrubs per cow are needed to generate enough leaf matter to bolster milk production, promoting FTT at scale necessitates the production, distribution, and successful planting of large numbers of shrub seedlings. We implemented a field experiment in Malawi’s Southern Region in late 2021 to test the effectiveness of a social learning intervention intended to motivate dairy farmers to significantly scale up the production of FTT seedlings. This intervention involved meeting with dairy farmers in 39 randomly selected milk production zones to review the numbers of seedlings being produced vis-à-vis local demand, coupled with the development of action plans to address identified production gaps. While we find that this intervention increased the setting up of private nurseries by 10% (p<0.05), it only increased overall seedling production by an average of 20 additional seedlings per dairy farmer (p>0.1). We offer several explanations for this lower than expected and statistically insignificant result, which point to the need for iterative rounds of engagement with farmers when supporting them to take up FTT and other complex agronomic and sustainable land management innovations.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Dario Krpan ◽  
Milan Urbaník

Abstract Behavioural science has been effectively used by policy makers in various domains, from health to savings. However, interventions that behavioural scientists typically employ to change behaviour have been at the centre of an ethical debate, given that they include elements of paternalism that have implications for people's freedom of choice. In the present article, we argue that this ethical debate could be resolved in the future through implementation and advancement of new technologies. We propose that several technologies which are currently available and are rapidly evolving (i.e., virtual and augmented reality, social robotics, gamification, self-quantification, and behavioural informatics) have a potential to be integrated with various behavioural interventions in a non-paternalistic way. More specifically, people would decide themselves which behaviours they want to change and select the technologies they want to use for this purpose, and the role of policy makers would be to develop transparent behavioural interventions for these technologies. In that sense, behavioural science would move from libertarian paternalism to liberalism, given that people would freely choose how they want to change, and policy makers would create technological interventions that make this change possible.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Corker ◽  
Elena Altieri ◽  
Susan Michie ◽  
Eloise Adsett

Nature ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Thompson ◽  
Shamini Bundell
Keyword(s):  

Nature ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine L. Milkman ◽  
Dena Gromet ◽  
Hung Ho ◽  
Joseph S. Kay ◽  
Timothy W. Lee ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document