Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Theory-Informed Design Guidelines for Shared Decision Making Tools for Health Behaviour Change

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Persuasive Technology (PERSUASIVE 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 12684))

Included in the following conference series:

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

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bandura, A.: Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 84(2), 191 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Elwyn, G., et al.: Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J. Gener. Internal Med. 27(10), 1361–1367 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

  8. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. HealthDecision: Healthdecision (2020). https://www.healthdecision.org/tool#/tool/hypertension. Accessed 17 Oct 2020

  10. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kon, A.A.: The shared decision-making continuum. Jama 304(8), 903–904 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.1208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

  20. NHS: What’s your heart age? (2016). https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/nhs-health-check/check-your-heart-age-tool/. Accessed 17 Oct 2020

  21. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Harjumaa, M.: Persuasive systems design: Key issues, process model, and system features. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 24(1), 28 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  23. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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

  28. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 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

Download references

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

  1. Faculty of Sciences, HCI and eHealth, UHasselt-tUL, Agoralaan, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium

    Cindel Bonneux & Karin Coninx

  2. Expertise Centre for Digital Media, UHasselt-tUL, Wetenschapspark 2, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium

    Gustavo Rovelo Ruiz

  3. Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, UHasselt, Agoralaan, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium

    Paul Dendale

Authors
  1. Cindel Bonneux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gustavo Rovelo Ruiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul Dendale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karin Coninx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cindel Bonneux .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hamad bin Khalifa University, Education City, Doha, Qatar

    Raian Ali

  2. University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

    Birgit Lugrin

  3. Bournemouth University, Poole, UK

    Fred Charles

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation