Abstract
Recently, the design and development of persuasive applications to support behaviour change in healthcare have gained interest. However, achieving sustained behaviour change remains challenging. Shared decision making (SDM) is increasingly advocated for making preference-sensitive decisions. In SDM, the patient and caregiver combine the patient’s preferences, values, goals, and context with the medical evidence and expert opinions to make an informed decision. The link between shared decision making and behaviour change has not yet been investigated thoroughly. Furthermore, there is little guidance on designing applications providing SDM support. In this paper, we focus on how SDM can help in achieving sustained behaviour change by presenting how SDM can bring in the caregiver perspective in the well-known, patient-oriented Fogg Behaviour Model. We propose seven principles to design a system aimed at supporting patients and caregivers during SDM encounters when making decisions regarding behaviour change. We conclude with an illustration of how our proposed design principles have been applied in two existing applications developed to support SDM for behaviour change.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bandura, A.: Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 84(2), 191 (1977)
Bonner, C., Fajardo, M.A., Hui, S., Stubbs, R., Trevena, L.: Clinical validity, understandability, and actionability of online cardiovascular disease risk calculators: systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 20(2), (2018). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8538
Consolvo, S., Klasnja, P., McDonald, D.W., Landay, J.A.: Goal-setting considerations for persuasive technologies that encourage physical activity. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, Persuasive 2009, pp. 8:1–8:8. ACM, New York (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1541948.1541960
Dierckx, K., Deveugele, M., Roosen, P., Devisch, I.: Implementation of shared decision making in physical therapy: observed level of involvement and patient preference. Phys. Ther. 93(10), 1321–1330 (2013). https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20120286
Elwyn, G., et al.: Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J. Gener. Internal Med. 27(10), 1361–1367 (2012)
Elwyn, G., et al.: Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ 333(7565), 417 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE
Fogg, B.J.: A behavior model for persuasive design. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, Persuasive 2009, Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1541948.1541999
Fogg, B.J., Hreha, J.: Behavior wizard: a method for matching target behaviors with solutions. In: Ploug, T., Hasle, P., Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6137, pp. 117–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13226-1_13
HealthDecision: Healthdecision (2020). https://www.healthdecision.org/tool#/tool/hypertension. Accessed 17 Oct 2020
Hess, E.P., Coylewright, M., Frosch, D.L., Shah, N.D.: Implementation of shared decision making in cardiovascular care past, present, and future. Circul.: Cardiovasc. Qual. Outcomes 7(5), 797–803 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000351
Jones, L.A., Weymiller, A.J., et al.: Should clinicians deliver decision aids? Further exploration of the statin choice randomized trial results. Med. Decis. Making 29(4), 468–474 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X09333120
Joosten, E.A., DeFuentes-Merillas, L., De Weert, G., Sensky, T., Van Der Staak, C., de Jong, C.A.: Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychother. psychosomat. 77(4), 219–226 (2008)
Joseph-Williams, N., et al.: Toward minimum standards for certifying patient decision aids: a modified Delphi consensus process. Med. Decis. Making 34(6), 699–710 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13501721
Kon, A.A.: The shared decision-making continuum. Jama 304(8), 903–904 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.1208
Légaré, F., Ratté, S., Gravel, K., Graham, I.D.: Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions. Patient Educ. Counsel. 73(3), 526–535 (2008)
Légaré, F., et al.: Interprofessionalism and shared decision-making in primary care: a stepwise approach towards a new model. J. Interprof. Care 25(1), 18–25 (2011)
Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P.: Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey. Am. Psychol. 57(9), 705 (2002)
Makoul, G., Clayman, M.L.: An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ. Counsel. 60(3), 301–312 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.06.010. eACH Conference 2004
Medynskiy, Y., Yarosh, S., Mynatt, E.: Five strategies for supporting healthy behavior change. In: CHI 2011 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA 2011, pp. 1333–1338. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/1979742.1979770
NHS: What’s your heart age? (2016). https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/nhs-health-check/check-your-heart-age-tool/. Accessed 17 Oct 2020
Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Harjumaa, M.: Towards deeper understanding of persuasion in software and information systems. In: First International Conference on Advances in Computer-human Interaction, pp. 200–205. IEEE (2008)
Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Harjumaa, M.: Persuasive systems design: Key issues, process model, and system features. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 24(1), 28 (2009)
Scobbie, L., Dixon, D., Wyke, S.: Goal setting and action planning in the rehabilitation setting: development of a theoretically informed practice framework. Clin. Rehabil. 25(5), 468–482 (2011)
Shay, L.A., Lafata, J.E.: Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med. Decis. Making 35(1), 114–131 (2015)
Shilts, M.K., Horowitz, M., Townsend, M.S.: Goal setting as a strategy for dietary and physical activity behavior change: a review of the literature. Am. J. Health Promot. 19(2), 81–93 (2004)
Sniehotta, F.F., Schwarzer, R., Scholz, U., Schüz, B.: Action planning and coping planning for long-term lifestyle change: theory and assessment. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35(4), 565–576 (2005)
Stacey, D., Légaré, F., et al.: Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (4) (2017). https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5/full
Stiggelbout, A., Pieterse, A., Haes, J.D.: Shared decision making: concepts, evidence, and practice. Patient Educ. Counsel. 98(10), 1172–1179 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.06.022
Stiggelbout, A.M., et al.: Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare. BMJ 344, 28–31 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e256
Wennberg, J.E., Fisher, E.S., Skinner, J.S.: Geography and the debate over medicare reform. Health Affairs, W96–W114 (2003). https://www.proquest.com/docview/204500754?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Special Research Fund (BOF) of Hasselt University (BOF18DOC26) and the EU funded project H2020 IA CoroPrevention (848056).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bonneux, C., Ruiz, G.R., Dendale, P., Coninx, K. (2021). Theory-Informed Design Guidelines for Shared Decision Making Tools for Health Behaviour Change. In: Ali, R., Lugrin, B., Charles, F. (eds) Persuasive Technology. PERSUASIVE 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12684. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79460-6_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79460-6_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-79459-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-79460-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)