Das Gesundheitswesen , Thieme Verlag Heft 4-2023, Jahrgang 85) ISSN 1439-4421 Seite(n) 380 bis 387 DOI: 10.1055/a-1757-9264 CareLit-Dokument-Nr: 318600 |
|
Zusammenfassung Hintergrund und Ziel In der Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention werden vermehrt digitale Anwendungen – vor allem zur Verhaltensänderung – angewandt und erforscht. Die vorliegende Studie untersucht Einsatzmöglichkeiten digitaler Anwendungen im Rahmen verhältnisorientierter Interventionen in Settings. Methodik Es handelt sich um eine ergänzende Analyse der Ergebnisse eines Scoping Reviews. In acht wissenschaftlichen Datenbanken wurde zu digitaler verhältnisorientierter Primärprävention und Gesundheitsförderung in Settings von 2010–2020 recherchiert. Ergebnisse Es wurden 34 Artikel eingeschlossen. Digitale Anwendungen wurden bisher nur marginal zur Strukturveränderung in Settings eingesetzt. Sie dienen als Tools zum Projektmanagement, zur Vernetzung, Problemidentifikation, Konsensfindung oder als Beteiligungsverfahren. Dabei wird auf partizipative Methoden und Projekte sowie Instrumente wie Labeling, Placement, Prompting, Incentives, Nudges und politische Strategien zurückgegriffen. Schlussfolgerung Es bedarf weiterer Evidenz wie digitale Anwendungen zur Veränderung von Strukturen für gesundheitsfördernde Settings eingesetzt werden können. Gesundheitswissenschaftliche oder soziologische Methoden und Theorien können dabei eine tragende Rolle spielen. Von hoher Relevanz sind die interdisziplinäre und partizipative Entwicklung sowie Implementierung von gesundheitsfördernden Technologien. Abstract Background and Objectives In health promotion and prevention, digital applications, especially for behavioral changes, are being increasingly researched and applied. The aim of this study was to investigate possible uses of digital applications in the context of structurally oriented interventions in these settings. Methods This is a supplementary analysis of the results of a scoping review. Eight scientific databases were searched for digital structural primary prevention and health promotion in settings from 2010–2020. Results A total of 34 articles were included. Digital applications were found to be used only marginally for structural change in health promoting settings. They served as tools for project management, networking, problem identification, consensus building or participation. Participatory methods and projects were used, as well as tools such as labeling, placement, prompting, incentives, nudges, and political strategies. Conclusions More evidence is needed on how digital applications can be used to change structures in health promoting settings. Public health or sociological methods and theories can play a supporting role. The interdisciplinary and participatory development and implementation of health promoting technologies is of high relevance. Schlüsselwörter Settingansatz - Gesundheitsförderung - Prävention - eHealth - mHealth Key words setting approach - health promotion - prevention - eHealth - mHealth Zusätzliches Material Zusätzliches Material 23 June 2022 © 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Georg Thieme Verlag Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany Literatur 1 GKV-Spitzenverband. Leitfaden Prävention – Handlungsfelder und Kriterien nach § 20 Abs. 2 SGB V. Leitfaden Prävention in stationären Pflegeeinrichtungen nach § 5 SGB XI. Berlin: GKV-Spitzenverband;; 2020 Google Scholar 2 Fischer F. Digitale Interventionen in Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung: Welche Form der Evidenz haben wir und welche wird benötigt?. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2020; 63: 674-680 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 3 Stellefson M, Paige SR, Chaney BH. et al. Evolving Role of Social Media in Health Promotion: Updated Responsibilities for Health Education Specialists. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17: 1153 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 4 Lupton D. Health promotion in the digital era: a critical commentary. Health Promot Int 2014; 30: 174-183 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 5 Stark AL, Geukes C, Dockweiler C. Digital Health Promotion and Prevention in Settings – Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res. 2022; 24: e21063 PubMedGoogle Scholar 6 Engelmann F, Halkow A. Der Setting-Ansatz in der Gesundheitsförderung: Genealogie, Konzeption, Praxis, Evidenzbasierung. Online: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-294064 Zugriff: 15.10.2021 PubMedGoogle Scholar 7 Dadaczynski K, Baumgarten K, Hartmann T. Settingbasierte Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention. Präv Gesundheitsf 2016; 11: 214-221 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 8 Luhmann N. Funktionen und Folgen formaler Organisation. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot; 1972 Google Scholar 9 World Health Organization. Health Promotion Glossary. Genf: World Health Organization; 1998 Google Scholar 10 Rosenbrock R. Prävention in Lebenswelten – der Setting-Ansatz. Z Allg Med 2015; 91: 213-219 PubMedGoogle Scholar 11 Loss J, Lindacher V, Curbach J. Online social networking sites – a novel setting for health promotion?. Health Place 2014; 26: 161-170 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 12 Kilian H, Geene R, Philippi T. Die Praxis der Gesundheitsförderung für sozial Benachteiligte im Setting. In: Rosenbrock R, Bellwinkel M, Schröer A, Hrsg. Primärprävention im Kontext sozialer Ungleichheit: Wissenschaftliche Gutachten zum BKK-Programm „Mehr Gesundheit für alle“. Bremerhaven: Wirtschaftsverl. NW Verl. für neue Wiss; 2004: 151-230 Google Scholar 13 Batras D, Duff C, Smith BJ. Organizational change theory: implications for health promotion practice. Health Promot Int 2016; 31: 231-241 PubMedGoogle Scholar 14 Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney: Free Press; 2003 Google Scholar 15 Lewin K. Resolving social conflicts and field theory in social science. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1997 CrossrefGoogle Scholar 16 Seibt AC. Erklärungs- und Veränderungsmodelle II: Stufen und Phasen von Planungs- und Veränderungsprozessen. In: Blümel S, Franzkowiak P, Kaba-Schönstein L, Hrsg. Leitbegriffe der Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention: Glossar zu Konzepten, Strategien und Methoden. Köln: Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung; 2011: 87-99 Google Scholar 17 Anderson LM, Petticrew M, Rehfuess E. et al. Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews. Res Syn Meth 2011; 2: 33-42 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 18 Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci 2010; 5: 69 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 19 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000097 Google Scholar 20 Carah N, Meurk C, Angus D. Online self-expression and experimentation as “reflectivism’: Using text analytics to examine the participatory forum Hello Sunday Morning. Health (London) 2017; 21: 119-135 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 21 Delaney T, Wyse R, Yoong SzeLin. et al. Cluster randomized controlled trial of a consumer behavior intervention to improve healthy food purchases from online canteens. Am J Clin Nutr 2017; 106: 1311-1320 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 22 Sheats JL, Winter SJ, Romero PP. et al. FEAST: Empowering Community Residents to Use Technology to Assess and Advocate for Healthy Food Environments. J Urban Health 2017; 94: 180-189 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 23 Ward DS, Vaughn AE, Mazzucca S. et al. Translating a child care based intervention for online delivery: development and randomized pilot study of Go NAPSACC. BMC Public Health 2017; 17: 891 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 24 Yepes MF. Mobile Tablet Menus: Attractiveness and Impact of Nutrition Labeling Formats on Millennials’ Food Choices. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 2015; 56: 58-67 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 25 Apolinario-Hagen J, Groenewold SD, Fritsche L. et al. Strengthening the health of distance-learning students. The GFS project at the Distance University of Hagen: from the health survey to the implementation of e-mental health programs and m-mental health apps. Präv Gesundheitsf 2018; 13: 151-158 PubMedGoogle Scholar 26 Buman MP, Winter SJ, Sheats JL. et al. The Stanford Healthy Neighborhood Discovery Tool: a computerized tool to assess active living environments. Am J Prev Med 2013; 44: e41-e47 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 27 Ekberg J, Timpka T, Angbratt M. et al. Design of an online health-promoting community: negotiating user community needs with public health goals and service capabilities. BMC Health Serv Res 2013; 13: 258 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 28 King AC, Winter SJ, Sheats JL. et al. Leveraging Citizen Science and Information Technology for Population Physical Activity Promotion. Transl J Am Coll Sports Med 2016; 1: 30-44 PubMedGoogle Scholar 29 Knöll M. Mobile Partizipation in der gesundheitsfördernden Stadtgestaltung – zwei Fallbeispiele zu Datenerfassung und Interaktion im Stadtraum. In: Baumgart S, Köckler H, Ritzinger A, Rüdiger A, Hrsg. Planung für gesundheitsfördernde Städte. Hannover: Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung Leibniz-Forum für Raumwissenschaften; 2018: 387-401 Google Scholar 30 Bourdeaudhuij de I, Maes L, Henauw de S. et al. Evaluation of a computer-tailored physical activity intervention in adolescents in six European countries: the Activ-O-Meter in the HELENA intervention study. J Adolesc Health 2010; 46: 458-466 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 31 Byun W, Lau EY, Brusseau TA. Feasibility and Effectiveness of a Wearable Technology-Based Physical Activity Intervention in Preschoolers: A Pilot Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15: 1821 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 32 Kattelmann KK, White AA, Greene GW. et al. Development of Young Adults Eating and Active for Health (YEAH) Internet-Based Intervention via a Community-Based Participatory Research Model. J Nutr Educ Behav 2014; 46: S11-S25 PubMedGoogle Scholar 33 Raghupathy S, Forth ALG. The HAWK2 Program: A Computer-Based Drug Prevention Intervention for Native American Youth. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2012; 38: 461-467 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 34 Robertson J, Jepson R, Macvean A. et al. Understanding the Importance of Context: A Qualitative Study of a Location-Based Exergame to Enhance School Childrens Physical Activity. PLoS ONE 2016; 11: e0160927 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 35 Carlfjord S, Lindberg M, Andersson A. Staff perceptions of addressing lifestyle in primary health care: a qualitative evaluation 2 years after the introduction of a lifestyle intervention tool. BMC Fam Pract 2012; 13: 90 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 36 Gold J, Pedrana AE, Stoove MA. et al. Developing health promotion interventions on social networking sites: recommendations from The FaceSpace Project. J Med Internet Res 2012; 14: e30 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 37 Hyden C, Cohall A. Innovative approaches to using new media and technology in health promotion for adolescents and young adults. Adolesc Med State Art Rev 2011; 22: 498-520 PubMedGoogle Scholar 38 Mahmud AJ, Olander E, Eriksén S. et al. Health communication in primary health care - A case study of ICT development for health promotion. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013; 13: 17 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 39 Neiger BL, Thackeray R, Burton SH. et al. Evaluating social media’s capacity to develop engaged audiences in health promotion settings: use of Twitter metrics as a case study. Health Promot Pract 2013; 14: 157-162 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 40 Wright CJC, Schwarzman J, Dietze PM. et al. Barriers and opportunities in the translation of mobile phone and social media interventions between research and health promotion practice in Australia: a qualitative study of expert perspectives. Health Res Policy Syst 2019; 17: 5 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 41 Backonja U, Hall AK, Thielke S. Older Adults’ Current and Potential Uses of Information Technologies in a Changing World: A Theoretical Perspective. Int J Aging Hum Dev 2014; 80: 41-63 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 42 Carr LJ, Dunsiger SI, Marcus BH. Walk score™ as a global estimate of neighborhood walkability. Am J Prev Med 2010; 39: 460-463 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 43 Duncan DT, Aldstadt J, Whalen J. et al. Validation of walk score for estimating neighborhood walkability: an analysis of four US metropolitan areas. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2011; 8: 4160-4179 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 44 Duncan DT. What’s your Walk Score(R)?: Web-based neighborhood walkability assessment for health promotion and disease prevention. Am J Prev Med 2013; 45: 244-245 PubMedGoogle Scholar 45 Knöll M. The Space of Digital Health Games. International Journal of Computer Science in Sport 2012; 11: 61-72 PubMedGoogle Scholar 46 Knöll M. Urban health games. Collaborative, expressive & reflective. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart;; 2012 Google Scholar 47 Buller DB, Andersen PA, Walkosz BJ. et al. Effect of an intervention on observed sun protection by vacationers in a randomized controlled trial at North American resorts. Prev Med 2017; 99: 29-36 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 48 Kröninger-Jungaberle H, Nagy E, Heyden von M. et al. REBOUND: A media-based life skills and risk education programme. Health Educ J 2015; 74: 705-719 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 49 Gilliland J, Sadler R, Clark A. et al. Using a Smartphone Application to Promote Healthy Dietary Behaviours and Local Food Consumption. Biomed Res Int 2015; 841368 PubMedGoogle Scholar 50 Loh IH, Schwendler T, Trude ACB. et al. Implementation of Text-Messaging and Social Media Strategies in a Multilevel Childhood Obesity Prevention Intervention: Process Evaluation Results. Inquiry 2018; 55: 1-9 PubMedGoogle Scholar 51 Templeton M, Kelly C, Lohan M. Developing a Sexual Health Promotion Intervention With Young Men in Prisons: A Rights-Based Participatory Approach. JMIR Res Protoc 2019; 8: e11829 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 52 Yang Y, Kang B, Lee EY. et al. Effect of an obesity prevention program focused on motivating environments in childhood: a school-based prospective study. Int J Obes (Lond) 2017; 41: 1027-1034 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 53 Pieck N. Betriebliche Gesundheitsförderung umsetzen – ein Überblick. In: Faller G, Abel B, Badura B, Bauer G, Hrsg. Lehrbuch betriebliche Gesundheitsförderung. Bern: Hogrefe; 2017: 179-188 Google Scholar 54 Gerhardus A, Rehfuess E, Zeeb H. Evidenzbasierte Verhältnisprävention und Gesundheitsförderung: Welche Studiendesigns brauchen wir?. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2015; 109: 40-45 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 55 Büchner S. Zum Verhältnis von Digitalisierung und Organisation. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 2018; 47: 332-348 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 56 Mehlis A, Locher V, Hornberg C. Organisationale Gesundheitskompetenz deutscher Gesundheitsämter (OGK-GA): Entwicklung eines theoretischen Modells mit Hilfe von ExpertInneninterviews. Gesundheitswesen. 2021 (eFirst) PubMedGoogle Scholar
{{detailinfo.data.api.data.document[0].apa}}
{{detailinfo.data.api.data.document[0].vancouver}}
{{detailinfo.data.api.data.document[0].harvard}}