Codesigning a Digital Type 2 Diabetes Risk Communication Tool in Singapore: Qualitative Participatory Action Research Approach

Abstract

BackgroundDiabetes is a serious public health concern worldwide. Despite public health efforts encouraging early screening and improving knowledge of effective interventions for those at increased risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D), the incorporation of preventative behaviors into an individual’s daily life remains suboptimal. Successfully and accurately increasing risk perception has been demonstrated to increase behavioral intention. ObjectiveThe study aims to codesign a T2D risk communication tool by engaging public participants to (1) identify key characteristics that contribute to an effective risk communication tool and (2) test and iterate to develop a culturally sensitive and meaningful risk communication tool that can motivate T2D preventative behaviors. MethodsWe adopted a novel methodology, “Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) Hawkers,” where we approached patrons at hawker centers and public eateries frequented by all local residents to evaluate and test 3 prototypes for the tool. The three prototypes were (1) “Diabetes Onset”—estimated age of diabetes onset of T2D based on one’s risk factors, (2) “Relative Risk”—the relative risk of T2D is presented in a 1-10 scale indicating where one’s risk score lie in relation to others, and (3) “Metabolic Age”—the median age of the risk category based on one’s risk factors, presented to be compared against their chronological age. We gathered reactions and feedback through rapid testing and iteration to understand which risk result presentation would be received the best. All the collected data were revisited and analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis to identify the key characteristics contributing to an effective risk communication tool. ResultsWe engaged with 112 participants (female: n=59, 56%) across 6 hawker centers. The key characteristics that were important to participants emerged in four main themes: (1) appeal and user experience, in terms of format and readability; (2) trust and validity of the institution providing the tool and the accuracy of the risk result; (3) threat appraisal: salience of risk information, which influenced their risk perception; and (4) coping appraisal: facilitators for behavior change, which impacted their intention for implementing T2D preventative behaviors. The predictive nature of the prototype entitled “Diabetes Onset” was poorly received and removed after the first iteration. The Relative Risk prototype was valued for being straightforward but feared to be boring. The Metabolic Age prototype was anticipated to be more motivating for behavior change, but there were some concerns that the terminology may not be understood by everyone. ConclusionsParticipants were divided on which of the 2 prototypes, “Metabolic Age” or “Relative Risk,” they would favor adopting. Further testing is now required to determine which prototype will be more effective in motivating behavior change. This study’s insights on the design process and valued characteristics of a risk communication tool will inform future development of such interventions.