Past research on designing for behavioural change mostly concerned linear design processes, whereas in practice, Agile design methods are increasingly popular. This paper evaluates the possibilities and limitations of using Agile design methods in theory-driven design for behavioural change. We performed a design case study, consisting of a student design team working on improving waiting experiences at Schiphol Airport security and check-in. Our study showed that Agile design methods are usable when designing for behavioural change. Moreover, the Behavioural Lenses toolkit used in the design process is beneficial in facilitating theory-driven Agile design. The combination of an Agile design process and tools to evidentially inform the design enabled the design team to formulate viable and interesting concepts for improving waiting-line experiences. However, limitations also occurred: a mismatch between the rate at which the Scream method proceeded and the time and momentum needed to conduct in-depth research.
MULTIFILE
Background Communication between people with aphasia and their healthcare professionals (HCPs) can be greatly improved when HCPs are trained in using supportive conversation techniques and tools. Communication partner training (CPT) is an umbrella term that covers a range of interventions that train the conversation partners of people with aphasia. Several CPT interventions for HCPs have been developed and used to support HCPs to interact successfully with people with aphasia. Aims The objective of this study was to identify the mechanisms of change as a result of a Dutch CPT intervention, named CommuniCare, in order to evaluate and optimise the intervention. Methods & procedures A total of 254 HCPs from five different healthcare centres received CommuniCare. An explorative qualitative research design was chosen. Two interviews were conducted with 24 HCPs directly after and 4 months after receiving the training that was part of CommuniCare. Two conceptual frameworks were used to deductively code the interviews. HCPs’ perspectives were coded into a four-part sequence following CIMO logic: the self-reported use of supportive conversation techniques or tools pre-intervention (Context), the intervention elements (Intervention) that evoked certain mechanisms (Mechanisms), resulting in the self-reported use of supportive conversation techniques and tools post-intervention (Outcomes). The Capabilities Opportunities Motivation–Behaviour (COM-B) model was used to fill in the Mechanisms component. Outcomes & results Three themes were identified to describe the mechanisms of change that led to an increase in the use of supportive conversation techniques and tools. According to HCPs, (i) information, videos, e-learning modules, role-play, feedback during training and coaching on the job increased their psychological capabilities; (ii) information and role-play increased their automatic motivations; and (iii) information, videos and role-play increased their reflective motivations. Remaining findings show HCPs’ perspectives on various barriers to use supportive conversation techniques and tools. Conclusions & implications HCPs in this study identified elements in our CPT intervention that positively influenced their behaviour change. Of these, role-play and coaching on the job were particularly important. HCPs suggested this last element should be better implemented. Therefore, healthcare settings wishing to enhance HCPs’ communication skills should first consider enhancing HCPs’ opportunities for experiential learning. Second, healthcare settings should determine which HCPs are suitable to have a role as implementation support practitioners, to support their colleagues in the use of supportive conversation techniques and tools.
LINK
Background: Self-management interventions are considered effective in patients with chronic disease, but trials have shown inconsistent results, and it is unknown which patients benefit most. Adequate self-management requires behaviour change in both patients and health care providers. Therefore, the Activate intervention was developed with a focus on behaviour change in both patients and nurses. The intervention aims for change in a single self-management behaviour, namely physical activity, in primary care patients at risk for cardiovascular disease. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Activate intervention. Methods/design: A two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted to compare the Activate intervention with care as usual at 31 general practices in the Netherlands. Approximately 279 patients at risk for cardiovascular disease will participate. The Activate intervention is developed using the Behaviour Change Wheel and consists of 4 nurse-led consultations in a 3-month period, integrating 17 behaviour change techniques. The Behaviour Change Wheel was also applied to analyse what behaviour change is needed in nurses to deliver the intervention adequately. This resulted in 1-day training and coaching sessions (including 21 behaviour change techniques). The primary outcome is physical activity, measured as the number of minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity using an accelerometer. Potential effect modifiers are age, body mass index, level of education, social support, depression, patient-provider relationship and baseline number of minutes of physical activity. Data will be collected at baseline and at 3 months and 6 months of follow-up. A process evaluation will be conducted to evaluate the training of nurses, treatment fidelity, and to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementation as well as to assess participants’ satisfaction. Discussion: To increase physical activity in patients and to support nurses in delivering the intervention, behaviour change techniques are applied to change behaviours of the patients and nurses. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the intervention, exploration of which patients benefit most, and evaluation of our theory-based training for primary care nurses will enhance understanding of what works and for whom, which is essential for further implementation of self-management in clinical practice.
