Sustainable Behavior Change for Health Supported by Person-Tailored, Adaptive, Risk-Aware Digital Coaching in a Social Context: Study Protocol for the STAR-C Research Programme

Nawi Ng, Malin Eriksson, Esteban Guerrero, Carina Gustafsson, John Kinsman, Jens Lindberg, Helena Lindgren, Kristina Lindvall, Anna Sofia Lundgren, Göran Lönnberg, Klas-Göran Sahlen, Ailiana Santosa, Linda Richter Sundberg, Lars Weinehall, Patrik Wennberg, Nawi Ng, Malin Eriksson, Esteban Guerrero, Carina Gustafsson, John Kinsman, Jens Lindberg, Helena Lindgren, Kristina Lindvall, Anna Sofia Lundgren, Göran Lönnberg, Klas-Göran Sahlen, Ailiana Santosa, Linda Richter Sundberg, Lars Weinehall, Patrik Wennberg

Abstract

Introduction: The Västerbotten Intervention Programme (VIP) in the Region Västerbotten Sweden is one of the very few cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention programmes globally that is integrated into routine primary health care. The VIP has been shown as a cost-effective intervention to significantly reduce CVD mortality. However, little is known about the effectiveness of a digital solution to tailor risk communication strategies for supporting behavioral change. STAR-C aims to develop and evaluate a technical platform for personalized digital coaching that will support behavioral change aimed at preventing CVD. Methods: STAR-C employs a mixed-methods design in seven multidisciplinary projects, which runs in two phases during 2019-2024: (i) a formative intervention design and development phase, and (ii) an intervention implementation and evaluation phase. In the 1st phase, STAR-C will model the trajectories of health behaviors and their impact on CVDs (Project 1), evaluate the role of the social environment and social networks on behavioral change (Project 2) and assess whether and how social media facilitates the spread of health information beyond targeted individuals and stimulates public engagement in health promotion (Project 3). The findings will be utilized in carrying out the iterative, user-centered design, and development of a person-tailored digital coaching platform (Project 4). In the 2nd phase, STAR-C will evaluate the implementation of the coaching programme and its effectiveness for promoting behavioral change and the spreading of health information across social networks and via social media (Project 5). The cost-effectiveness (Project 6) and ethical issues (Project 7) related to the coaching programme intervention will be evaluated. Discussion: The STAR-C research programme will address the knowledge and practice research gaps in the use of information technologies in health promotion and non-communicable disease (NCD) prevention programmes in order to narrow the health inequality gaps. Ethics: STAR-C has received approval from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Dnr. 2019-02924;2020-02985). Dissemination: The collaboration between Umeå University and Region Västerbotten will ensure the feasibility of STAR-C in the service delivery context. Results will be communicated with decision-makers at different levels of society, stakeholders from other regions and healthcare professional organizations, and through NGOs, local and social media platforms.

Keywords: behavioural change; digital coaching; evaluation of intervention; formative research; health behaviour trajectories; interdisciplinary programme; social media; social network.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2021 Ng, Eriksson, Guerrero, Gustafsson, Kinsman, Lindberg, Lindgren, Lindvall, Lundgren, Lönnberg, Sahlen, Santosa, Richter Sundberg, Weinehall and Wennberg.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The VIP star-shaped infographic.

References

    1. Global Burden of Disease Causes of Death Collaborators . Global, regional, and national age-sex-specific mortality for 282 causes of death in 195 countries and territories, 1980-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. (2018) 392:1736–88. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32203-7
    1. Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation . “Global Burden of Disease Visualization”. Washington, DC: Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation; (2020)
    1. Piepoli MF, Hoes AW, Agewall S, Albus C, Brotons C, Catapano AL, et al. . 2016 European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: the Sixth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. (2016) 37:2315–81. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw106
    1. Dyakova M, Shantikumar S, Colquitt JL, Drew CM, Sime M, Maciver J, et al. . Systematic versus opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2016) 2016:CD010411. 10.1002/14651858.CD010411.pub2
    1. Emberson J, Whincup P, Morris R, Walker M, Ebrahim S. Evaluating the impact of population and high-risk strategies for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Eur Heart J. (2004) 25:484–91. 10.1016/j.ehj.2003.11.012
    1. Marmot M, Bell R. Fair society, healthy lives. Public Health. (2012) 126(Suppl. 1):S4–10. 10.1016/j.puhe.2012.05.014
    1. United Nation . Sustainable Development Goals. (2018). United Nation. Available online at: (accessed January 15, 2021).
    1. Poulton R, Moffitt TE, Silva PA. The dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study: overview of the first 40 years, with an eye to the future. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. (2015) 50:679–93. 10.1007/s00127-015-1048-8
    1. Theodore RF, Broadbent J, Nagin D, Ambler A, Hogan S, Ramrakha S, et al. . Childhood to early-midlife systolic blood pressure trajectories: early-life predictors, effect modifiers, and adult cardiovascular outcomes. Hypertension. (2015) 66:1108–15. 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.115.05831
    1. Cooney MT, Dudina A, D'agostino R, Graham IM. Cardiovascular risk-estimation systems in primary prevention: do they differ? Do they make a difference? Can we see the future? Circulation. (2010) 122:300–10. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.852756
    1. French DP, Cameron E, Benton JS, Deaton C, Harvie M. Can communicating personalised disease risk promote healthy behaviour change? A systematic review of systematic reviews. Ann Behav Med. (2017) 51:718–29. 10.1007/s12160-017-9895-z
    1. Michie S, Thomas J, Johnston M, Aonghusa PM, Shawe-Taylor J, Kelly MP, et al. . The Human Behaviour-Change Project: harnessing the power of artificial intelligence and machine learning for evidence synthesis and interpretation. Implement Sci. (2017) 12:121. 10.1186/s13012-017-0641-5
    1. Norberg M, Wall S, Boman K, Weinehall L. The Vasterbotten Intervention Programme: background, design and implications. Glob Health Action. (2010) 3:4643. 10.3402/gha.v3i0.4643
    1. Miller WR. Motivational interviewing: research, practice, and puzzles. Addict Behav. (1996) 21:835–42. 10.1016/0306-4603(96)00044-5
    1. Miller WR, Rose GS. Toward a theory of motivational interviewing. Am Psychol. (2009) 64:527–37. 10.1037/a0016830
    1. Blomstedt Y, Norberg M, Stenlund H, Nystrom L, Lonnberg G, Boman K, et al. . Impact of a combined community and primary care prevention strategy on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: a cohort analysis based on 1 million person-years of follow-up in Vasterbotten County, Sweden, during 1990-2006. BMJ Open. (2015) 5:e009651. 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009651
    1. Norberg M, Blomstedt Y, Lonnberg G, Nystrom L, Stenlund H, Wall S, et al. . Community participation and sustainability - evidence over 25 years in the Vasterbotten Intervention Programme. Glob Health Action. (2012) 5:1–9. 10.3402/gha.v5i0.19166
    1. Emmelin M, Weinehall L, Stenlund H, Wall S, Dahlgren L. To be seen, confirmed and involved–a ten year follow-up of perceived health and cardiovascular risk factors in a Swedish community intervention programme. BMC Public Health. (2007) 7:190. 10.1186/1471-2458-7-190
    1. Hornsten A, Lindahl K, Persson K, Edvardsson K. Strategies in health-promoting dialogues–primary healthcare nurses' perspectives–a qualitative study. Scand J Caring Sci. (2014) 28:235–44. 10.1111/scs.12045
    1. Harris CR, Jenkins M, Glaser D. Gender differences in risk assessment: why do women take fewer risks than men? Judgment Decision Making. (2006) 1:48–63. 10.1037/e511092014-212
    1. Lapsley DK, Hill PL. Subjective invulnerability, optimism bias and adjustment in emerging adulthood. J Youth Adolesc. (2010) 39:847–57. 10.1007/s10964-009-9409-9
    1. Kim Y, Park I, Kang S. Age and gender differences in health risk perception. Cent Eur J Public Health. (2018) 26:54–9. 10.21101/cejph.a4920
    1. Aycock DM, Clark PC, Anderson AM, Sharma D. Health perceptions, stroke risk, and readiness for behavior change: gender differences in young adult African Americans. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. (2019) 6:821–9. 10.1007/s40615-019-00581-0
    1. Canada K, Brusca F. The technological gender gap: evidence and recommendations for educators and computer-based instruction designers. Educ Technol Res Dev. (1991) 39:43–51. 10.1007/BF02298153
    1. Whitley BE. Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behavior: a meta-analysis. Comput Human Behav. (1997) 13:1–22. 10.1016/S0747-5632(96)00026-X
    1. Cai Z, Fan X, Du J. Gender and attitudes toward technology use: a meta-analysis. Comput Educ. (2017) 105:1–13. 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.003
    1. Zhang X, Guo X, Lai KH, Guo F, Li C. Understanding gender differences in m-health adoption: a modified theory of reasoned action model. Telemed J E Health. (2014) 20:39–46. 10.1089/tmj.2013.0092
    1. OECD . Bridging the Digital Gender Divide: Include, Upskill, Innovate. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; (2018).
    1. Prochaska JO, Velicer WF. The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot. (1997) 12:38–48. 10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38
    1. Davis R, Campbell R, Hildon Z, Hobbs L, Michie S. Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: a scoping review. Health Psychol Rev. (2015) 9:323–44. 10.1080/17437199.2014.941722
    1. Valente TW, Pitts SR. An appraisal of social network theory and analysis as applied to public health: challenges and opportunities. Annu Rev Public Health. (2017) 38:103–18. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044528
    1. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY: Free Press; (2003).
    1. Jung T, Wickrama K. An introduction to latent class growth analysis and growth mixture modeling. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. (2016) 2:302–17. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00054.x
    1. Kawachi I, Berkman LF. Social ties and mental health. J Urban Health. (2001) 78:458–67. 10.1093/jurban/78.3.458
    1. Fuhrer R, Stansfeld SA. How gender affects patterns of social relations and their impact on health: a comparison of one or multiple sources of support from “close persons”. Soc Sci Med. (2002) 54:811–25. 10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00111-3
    1. Clarke AE. Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. London: SAGE Publications; (2005). 10.4135/9781412985833
    1. Laclau E, Mouffe C. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. New York, NY: Verso; (1985).
    1. Glynos J, Howarth D. Logics of Critical Explanation in Social and Political Theory. London: Routledge; (2007). 10.4324/9780203934753
    1. Bucher T. Programmed Sociality: A Software Studies Perspective on Social Networking Sites. Oslo University, Norway: (2012).
    1. Janols R, Lindgren H. A method for co-designing theory-based behaviour change systems for health promotion. Stud Health Technol Inform. (2017) 235:368–72. 10.3233/978-1-61499-753-5-368
    1. Oinas-Kukkonen H, Harjumaa M. Persuasive systems design: key issues, process model, system features. Commun Assoc Inform Syst. (2009) 28:485–501. 10.17705/1CAIS.02428
    1. Kelders SM, Kok RN, Ossebaard HC, Van Gemert-Pijnen JE. Persuasive system design does matter: a systematic review of adherence to web-based interventions. J Med Internet Res. (2012) 14:e152. 10.2196/jmir.2104
    1. Mohr DC, Schueller SM, Montague E, Burns MN, Rashidi P. The behavioral intervention technology model: an integrated conceptual and technological framework for eHealth and mHealth interventions. J Med Internet Res. (2014) 16:e146. 10.2196/jmir.3077
    1. Op Den Akker H, Jones VM, Hermens HJ. Tailoring real-time physical activity coaching systems: a literature survey and model. User Model User-Adapted Interact. (2014) 24:351–92. 10.1007/s11257-014-9146-y
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. (2006) 3:77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. What can “thematic analysis” offer health and wellbeing researchers? Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. (2014) 9:26152. 10.3402/qhw.v9.26152
    1. Bellastella G, Scappaticcio L, Esposito K, Giugliano D, Maiorino MI. Metabolic syndrome and cancer: “The common soil hypothesis”. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. (2018) 143:389–97. 10.1016/j.diabres.2018.05.024
    1. World Health Organization . WHO Guideline: Recommendations on Digital Interventions for Health System Strengthening. Geneva: World Health Organization; (2019).
    1. Black AD, Car J, Pagliari C, Anandan C, Cresswell K, Bokun T, et al. . The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview. PLoS Med. (2011) 8:e1000387. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000387
    1. Bautista JR. From solving a health problem to achieving quality of life: redefining eHealth literacy. J Lit Technol. (2015) 16:33–54. Available online at:
    1. Shaw T, Mcgregor D, Brunner M, Keep M, Janssen A, Barnet S. What is eHealth (6)? Development of a conceptual model for eHealth: qualitative study with key informants. J Med Internet Res. (2017) 19:e324. 10.2196/jmir.8106
    1. Levin-Zamir D, Bertschi I. Media health literacy, eHealth literacy, and the role of the social environment in context. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2018) 15:1643. 10.3390/ijerph15081643
    1. Nutbeam D, Levin-Zamir D, Rowlands G. Health literacy in context. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2018) 15:2657. 10.3390/ijerph15122657
    1. Norman C. eHealth literacy 2.0: problems and opportunities with an evolving concept. J Med Internet Res. (2011) 13:e125. 10.2196/jmir.2035
    1. Lilford RJ, Foster J, Pringle M. Evaluating eHealth: how to make evaluation more methodologically robust. PLoS Med. (2009) 6:e1000186. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000186
    1. Kuh D, Karunananthan S, Bergman H, Cooper R. A life-course approach to healthy ageing: maintaining physical capability. Proc Nutr Soc. (2014) 73:237–48. 10.1017/S0029665113003923
    1. Eurostat . “Europe in Figures – Eurostat Yearbook”. (2015). Available online at: (accessed January 15, 2021).
    1. Perrig-Chiello P, Hutchison S. Health and well-being in old age: the pertinence of a gender mainstreaming approach in research. Gerontology. (2010) 56:208–13. 10.1159/000235813
    1. SOU 2019:42 . “Digifysiskt vårdval – Tillgänglig primärvård baserad på behov och kontinuitet.” Stockholm: Statens Offentliga Utredningar; (2019).

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe