Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31325290›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2019

Social Cognitive Theories and Electronic Health Design: Scoping Review.

Patricia Grace-Farfaglia

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Patricia Grace-Farfaglia *Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Connecticut, Waterbury, CT, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6717-0544

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are several social cognitive theories (SCTs) and models that support platform design in electronic health (eHealth) promotion trials. The rationale for this scoping review was to determine how social design features (informational aid, expressive support, gaming, and tailored content) are used to promote self-efficacy, engagement, knowledge, and behavior change.

objectiveThis study aimed to review a broad spectrum of digital health interventions in the literature seeking trials that use SCTs for the design of eHealth applications.

methodsThe author conducted a systematic scoping review of 161 Web-based health interventions from published randomized clinical trials using 1 or more tools to address the social cognitive determinants in their website design from January 2006 to April 2016. An iterative approach was used in the selection of studies and data extraction. The studies were analyzed for quality and coded for type of social design features employed.

resultsExpressive interaction tools were found in 48.6% (54/111) of studies categorized as a strong recommendation by the Joanna Briggs Institute criteria. Overall, less than half of the studies addressed participant social support and motivational needs (43.8%). The vast majority of studies (100%) relied on the use of the Web for delivery of informational aid and tailored content for the individual participant (75.9%).

conclusionsThis review fills a research gap by linking social theory to Web strategy to improve the impact and sustainability of eHealth interventions. A Digital Health Intervention Model was developed to provide a framework to enhance future Web-based health intervention design and execution.

Indexed as

behavioral economicsdesignhealth promotionserious gamessocial mediasocial supportsocial theory

Identifiers

PMID31325290
PMCPMC6676794

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.