Altering micro-environments to change population health behaviour: towards an evidence base for choice architecture interventions

BMC Public Health

David Ogilvie⁶  Marc Suhrcke⁵  Ryota Nakamura¹  Michael P Kelly³  Susan A Jebb²  Theresa M Marteau⁴  Ian Shemilt⁴  Gareth J Hollands⁴ 

[1] School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK;Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK;The Centre for Public Health, The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), London, UK;Behaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK;UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK;MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

关键词: Health behaviour;    Behaviour change;    Nudging;    Nudge;    Choice architecture;   

Others  :  1161406
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-13-1218

 received in 2013-07-31, accepted in 2013-12-10,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The idea that behaviour can be influenced at population level by altering the environments within which people make choices (choice architecture) has gained traction in policy circles. However, empirical evidence to support this idea is limited, especially its application to changing health behaviour. We propose an evidence-based definition and typology of choice architecture interventions that have been implemented within small-scale micro-environments and evaluated for their effects on four key sets of health behaviours: diet, physical activity, alcohol and tobacco use.

Discussion

We argue that the limitations of the evidence base are due not simply to an absence of evidence, but also to a prior lack of definitional and conceptual clarity concerning applications of choice architecture to public health intervention. This has hampered the potential for systematic assessment of existing evidence. By seeking to address this issue, we demonstrate how our definition and typology have enabled systematic identification and preliminary mapping of a large body of available evidence for the effects of choice architecture interventions. We discuss key implications for further primary research, evidence synthesis and conceptual development to support the design and evaluation of such interventions.

Summary

This conceptual groundwork provides a foundation for future research to investigate the effectiveness of choice architecture interventions within micro-environments for changing health behaviour. The approach we used may also serve as a template for mapping other under-explored fields of enquiry.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Hollands et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Das P, Horton R: Rethinking our approach to physical activity. Lancet 2012, 380(9838):189-190.
• [2]Marteau TM, Ogilvie D, Roland M, Suhrcke M, Kelly MP: Judging nudging: can nudging improve population health? BMJ 2011, 342:d228.
• [3]Thaler RH, Sunstein C: Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2008.
• [4]Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team: Applying behavioural insight to health. London: Cabinet Office; 2010.
• [5]Department of Health: Healthy lives, healthy people: our strategy for public health in England. London: Department of Health; 2010.
• [6]House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee: Behaviour change: 2nd report of session 2010–12 (HL paper 179). London: The Stationery Office Limited; 2011.
• [7]Blumenthal-Barby JS, Burroughs H: Seeking better health care outcomes: the ethics of using the “nudge”. Am J Bioeth 2012, 12(2):1-10.
• [8]Ploug T, Holm S, Brodersen J: To nudge or not to nudge: cancer screening programmes and the limits of libertarian paternalism. J Epidemiol Community Health 2012, 66(12):1193-1196.
• [9]Swinburn B, Egger G, Raza F: Dissecting obesogenic environments: the development and application of a framework for identifying and prioritizing environmental interventions for obesity. Prev Med 1999, 29(6):563-570.
• [10]Rozin P, Scott S, Dingley M, Urbanek JK, Jiang H, Kaltenbach M: Nudge to nobesity I: minor changes in accessibility decrease food intake. Judgment Decis Making 2011, 6(4):323-332.
• [11]VanHouten R, Nau PA, Merrigan MJ: Reducing elevator energy use: a comparison of posted feedback and reduced elevator convenience. J Appl Behav Anal 1981, 14:377-387.
• [12]Hofmann W, Friese M, Wiers RW: Impulsive versus reflective influences on health behavior: a theoretical framework and empirical review. Health Psychol Rev 2008, 2(2):111-137.
• [13]Marteau TM, Hollands GJ, Fletcher PC: Changing human behaviour to prevent disease: the importance of targeting automatic processes. Science 2012, 337(6101):1492-1495.
• [14]Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C: The health literacy of America’s adults: results from the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy (NCES 2006–483; U.S. Department of Education). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics; 2006.
• [15]Williams J, Clemens S, Oleinikova K, Tarvin K: The skills for life survey: a national needs and impact survey of literacy, numeracy and ICT skills. Norwich: Department of Education and Skills; 2003.
• [16]Economic decision-making in poverty depletes behavioral control. CEPS Working Paper. http://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/213spears.pdf webcite
• [17]Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team: Behavioural insights team annual update 2010–11. London: Cabinet Office; 2011.
• [18]Dolan P, Hallsworth M, Halpern D, King D, Vlaev I: MINDSPACE: influencing behaviour through public policy. London: Cabinet Office; 2010.
• [19]Thorndike AN, Sonnenberg L, Riis J, Barraclough S, Levy DE: A 2-phase labeling and choice architecture intervention to improve healthy food and beverage choices. Am J Public Health 2012, 102(3):527-533.
• [20]Skov LR, Lourenço S, Hansen GL, Mikkelsen BE, Schofield C: Choice architecture as a means to change eating behaviour in self-service settings: a systematic review. Obes Rev 2013, 14(3):187-196.
• [21]Hollands GJ, Shemilt I, Marteau TM, Jebb SA, Kelly MP, Nakamura R, Suhrcke M, Ogilvie D: Altering choice architecture to change population health behaviour: a large-scale conceptual and empirical scoping review of interventions within micro-environments. Cambridge: University of Cambridge; 2013.
• [22]Shemilt I, Simon A, Hollands GJ, Marteau TM, Ogilvie D, O’Mara-Eves A, Kelly MP, Thomas J: Pinpointing needles in giant haystacks: use of text mining to reduce impractical screening workload in extremely large scoping reviews. Res Synth Methods 2013. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1093
• [23]Moreira M, Teresa , Smith LA, Foxcroft D: Social norms interventions to reduce alcohol misuse in University or College students. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009, 3:CD006748. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006748.pub2
• [24]Shemilt I, Hollands GJ, Marteau TM, Nakamura R, Jebb SA, Kelly MP, Suhrcke M, Ogilvie D: Economic instruments for population diet and physical activity behaviour change: a systematic scoping review. PLoS One 2013, 8(9):e75070.
• [25]Dehaene S, Changeux J-P, Naccache L, Sackur J, Sergent C: Conscious, preconscious, and subliminal processing: a testable taxonomy. Trends Cogn Sci 2006, 10(5):204-211.
• [26]Bargh JA, Carlston D, Morsella E: Unconscious behavioral guidance systems. In Then a miracle occurs: focusing on behavior in social psychological theory and research. Edited by Agnew C, Graziano W, Kelly J. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.
• [27]Soler RE, Leeks KD, Buchanan LR, Brownson RC, Heath GW, Hopkins DH: Point-of-decision prompts to increase stair use: a systematic review update. Am J Prev Med 2010, 38(2, Supplement):S292-S300.
• [28]Michie S, van Stralen M, West R: The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 2011, 6(1):42. BioMed Central Full Text
• [29]Sheeran P, Gollwitzer PM, Bargh JA: Nonconscious processes and health. Health Psychol 2013, 32(5):460-473.
• [30]Bonell C, McKee M, Fletcher A, Haines A, Wilkinson P: Nudge smudge: UK Government misrepresents “nudge”. Lancet 2011, 377(9784):2158-2159.