| Literature DB >> 35831786 |
Hafez Ismaili M'hamdi1, Régine P M Steegers-Theunissen2, Sharissa M Smith3, Rianne M J J van der Kleij3,4, Babette Bais3, Maartje H N Schermer1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women with a vulnerable health status, as determined by a low socioeconomic status and poor lifestyle behaviours, are at risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Offering tailored preconception lifestyle care can significantly help to improve pregnancy outcomes. We hypothesize that so-called 'nudges' can be a successful way of increasing the uptake of preconception lifestyle care. A nudge is a behavioural intervention that supports healthy choices by making them easier to choose. Nudging, however, raises many moral questions. Effectiveness and respect for autonomy are, among other criteria, required for a nudge to be morally permissible. In general, the target group knows best what they find permissible and what would motivate them to change their lifestyle. Therefore, this study - conducted in women with a vulnerable health status - aimed to identify their preferences towards a nudge, provided via a mobile application that aims to help them adopt healthy lifestyle behaviours by offering rewards.Entities:
Keywords: Ethics; Life course; Lifestyle; Nudge; Preconception care; Rewards; Socioeconomic factors
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35831786 PMCID: PMC9281116 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-022-04887-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.105
Fig. 1Inclusion flowchart
Baseline characteristics (n = 12)
| Demographics | Participants | |
|---|---|---|
| Age in years, median (range) | 30.5 (18–42) | |
| Educational levelb | Low | 6 (50%) |
| Intermediate | 6 (50%) | |
| Median income neighbourhooda | Low | 7 (58%) |
| Middle | 5 (41.7%) | |
| Parity | Nulliparous | 5 (41.7%) |
| 1 | 5 (41.7%) | |
| ≥ 2 | 2 (16.7%) | |
aEducational level [24]. The Dutch educational levels are subdivided as follows; Low: prevocational education, selective secondary education or lower. Intermediate: vocational education. High: bachelor’s degree, master’s degree or higher
bThe median household income of a neighbourhood is determined by the distribution of household income of all households in the country. The median income of a neighbourhood is equal to the middle income if all households are ranked from low to high. Low: < €21.000 ($24.800), Middle: €21.000—€26.800 ($24.800—$31.700), Middle-High: €26.800—€34.600 ($31.700—$40.900), High > €34.600 ($31.700)
Overview of the results
| Themes | Outcomes | ɳ | Summary | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| App deemed useful | 10/12 | • Integral source of information is very welcome • Amount of available information is overwhelming • Available information is scattered | ||
| App deemed not useful | 2/12 | • Prefer to follow own rules | ||
| Rewards deemed permissible | 12/12 | • Rewards form additional source of motivation | ||
| Doubts on permissibility | 2/12 | • Rewards for healthy behaviour might feel uneasy | ||
| Rewards deemed effective | 11/12 | • Rewards may spike increased interest in the app • Earning points feels like a game/challenge | ||
| Doubts on effectiveness | 3/12 | • Persons who use the app are already motivated | ||
| Desired information | - | • Nutrition, exercise, preconception period, fertility • Effects of (abstaining from) tobacco/alcohol/drugs • Rationale behind the given advice • Information on pregnancy and postpartum period | ||
| Desired features | - | • User friendly dashboard • Personalised advice • In-app communication with peers | ||
| Desired rewards | - | • Baby products, books, sportswear, pregnancy vitamins, luxury goods, healthy food | ||
| System of allocation | Points | 5/12 | • Freedom to choose when/how to spend points | |
| Goals | 3/12 | • Saving points lacks an endpoint | ||
| Anticipated barriers | - | • Payment for the app (≥ €0,01) • Asking healthcare provider for access • Not considering themselves part of the target group | ||
| Not considered barriers | - | • Stigmatisation • Shame | ||