building health behavior models to guide the...
TRANSCRIPT
Building health behavior models to guide the development of just-in-time adaptive
interventions: A pragmatic framework
Inbal Nahum-ShaniThe University of Michigan
Eric B. HeklerArizona State UniversityDonna Spruijt-Metz
The University of Southern California
Technical Report Number 15-131
Copyright 2015, The Pennsylvania State University
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Please send questions and comments to Inbal Nahum-Shani, [email protected] .
The suggested citation for this technical report is
Nahum-Shani, I., Hekler, E. B., & Spruijt-Metz, D. (2015). Building health behavior models to guide the development of just-in-time adaptive interventions: A pragmatic framework (Technical Report No. 15-131). University Park, PA: The Methodology Center, Penn State.
This work was supported by Awards P50DA010075, R01 AA-014851, and U54 EB020404 the National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 2
Abstract
Advances in wireless devices and mobile technology offer many opportunities for delivering
just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs)—suites of interventions that adapt over time to an
individual’s changing status and circumstances with the goal to address the individual’s need for
support, whenever this need arises. A major challenge confronting behavioral scientists aiming to
develop a JITAI concerns the selection and integration of existing empirical, theoretical and
practical evidence into a scientific model that can inform the construction of a JITAI and help
identify scientific gaps. The purpose of this paper is to establish a pragmatic framework that can
be used to organize existing empirical and theoretical evidence into a useful model for JITAI
construction. This framework involves clarifying the conceptual purpose of a JITAI, namely the
provision of just-in-time (JIT) support via adaptation, as well as describing the components of a
JITAI and articulating a list of concrete questions to guide the establishment of a useful model
for JITAI construction. The proposed framework includes an organizing scheme for translating
the relatively static scientific models underlying many health behavior interventions into a more
dynamic model that better incorporates the element of time. This framework will help to guide
the next generation of empirical work to support the creation of effective JITAIs.
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 3
Introduction
Advances in wireless devices and mobile technology offer many opportunities for
delivering interventions at any time, and in a way that accommodates an individual’s immediate
needs (Riley et al., 2011). The term “Just-In-Time Adaptive Interventions” (JITAIs) (Spruijt-
Metz & Nilsen, 2014) is used to describe a suite of interventions that adapt over time to an
individual’s changing status and circumstances, with the goal to address the individual’s need for
support, whenever this need arises. Recent advances in mobile technology and wearable sensors
make these interventions increasingly more feasible and acceptable. For example, mHealth
interventions attempting to provide timely support are being developed and evaluated for a wide
range of health issues and behaviors, such as physical activity (King et al. 2013; Consolvo et al.
2008), drug abuse (Dennis, Scott, Funk, & Nicholson, 2014), alcohol use (Witkiewitz et al.,
2014; Gustafson et al., 2014), smoking cessation (Riley, Obermayer, & Jean-Mary, 2008),
obesity/weight management (Patrick et al., 2009), and mental illnesses (Ben-Zeev et al., 2014).
Despite the increased use and appealing nature of JITAIs, a major gap exists between the
technological capacity to deliver JITAIs and existing health behavior models. Establishing a
scientific model is an important step in constructing behavioral interventions (Collins, Murphy,
& Bierman, 2004). Most behavioral interventions are developed based on scientific models that
articulate key risk and protective factors that are associated with the targeted health outcome.
These models are often used to construct interventions to address these key risk and protective
factors. However, most existing models largely emphasize and articulate static relationships,
focusing on risk and protective factors that change relatively slowly over time, such as
demographic factors, psychiatric diagnoses, and past high-risk behaviors (Spruijt-Metz, Nilsen,
& Pavel, 2014). JITAIs, on the other hand, provide support whenever such support is needed,
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 4
seeking to address risk and protective factors that are dynamic and likely to change (often
rapidly) over time, such as mood, location, social interactions and immediate crises in everyday
life (Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 1993).
A major challenge confronting behavioral scientists aiming to develop a JITAI concerns
the selection and integration of existing evidence into a scientific model that can inform the
construction of a JITAI. While the need to develop more dynamic health behavior models has
been well-established (Riley et al., 2011), the current literature provides little guidance on the
structure and predictions needed from these models to scientifically inform the development of
efficacious JITAIs. The choice of scientific models to inform the development of a JITAI should
be guided partially by the requirements of the JITAI itself, such as providing insights not only on
how to intervene, but also when and when not to intervene.
The aim of this paper is to establish a pragmatic framework that can be used to organize
existing and new empirical and theoretical evidence into a useful model for JITAI construction.
The foundation for this framework is established by clarifying the conceptual purpose of a
JITAI, namely the provision of just-in-time (JIT) support via adaptation. After briefly reviewing
the key elements in operationalizing JITAIs (Nahum-Shani et al. 2014), we offer a list of
concrete questions to guide the process of establishing a useful model for JITAI construction.
We conclude by discussing opportunities for future research that can advance the science of
JITAIs. The hope is that the proposed framework will help guide the next generation of empirical
work to support the creation of effective JITAIs. Table 1 summarizes key terms and definitions.
What is a JITAI?
To clarify the conceptual purpose of JITAIs, we elaborate on the two key concepts that
distinguish these interventions from standard intervention designs: just-in-time and adaptive.
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 5
Just-In-Time (JIT). The concept JIT has long traditions in various fields. For example,
in industrial management and operation research JIT is a philosophy of manufacturing that seeks
to “produce the right item, at the right time, in the right quantities” (Canel, Rosen & Anderson,
2000, pp.52). It is based on a management plan that emphasizes continuous improvement and
identifies and then eliminates all “waste”— defined as anything that does not add value to the
product. In the field of education, the term JIT is rooted in instructional approaches that focus on
real-life tasks as the driving force for learning. Because these tasks and the real-life context in
which they are performed involve high cognitive load, these approaches emphasize the need to
take the limited human-processing capacity into account. Hence, strategies for scaffolding
include JIT support, meaning providing the type of support needed, precisely when needed, and
only when needed during task performance (see van Merrienboer, Kirschner, & Kester, 2003 for
review). Overall, the traditions above, as well as others (e.g., Drews et al., 2007; Frazier,
Spekman, & O’Neal, 1988; Karolak & Karolak, 1995), conceptualize JIT as the effective
provision of timely support, operationalized by offering the type of support needed, precisely
when needed, in a way that minimizes waste (i.e., defined as anything that does not benefit the
person) and accommodates the real-life setting in which support is needed.
We build on the traditions above to suggest that in the context of health behavior
interventions, the JIT approach is primarily motivated by the need to effectively assist people
whenever they are vulnerable and/or whenever opportunities for positive changes arise (Ben-
Zeev et al., 2014; King et al. 2013). Given that vulnerability and opportunity can occur anytime
in everyday life (Fletcher, Tobias, & Wisher, 2007; Witkiewitz & Marlatt, 2004), JIT support in
this setting can be operationalized by (a) identifying states of vulnerability or opportunity for
progress and providing the type of support needed in such states, precisely and only when
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 6
needed; as well as by (b) ensuring that the person is in a state of receptivity; that is, in a state
where s/he can receive, process and use the type of support needed.
State of vulnerability/opportunity. Stress-vulnerability and coping theories (Zubin &
Spring, 1977, Lazarus, 1993, Witkiewitz & Marlatt, 2004) conceptualize a vulnerable state as the
person’s transient tendency to experience adverse health outcomes or to engage in maladaptive
behaviors. A vulnerable state is a function of the interplay between relatively stable factors (e.g.,
personality traits, socio-econmic status, air polution) and more dynamic situational factors
ranging from relatively rare life events (e.g., unemployement), to more transient experiences
(e.g., conflict with a coworkers). Here, JIT support can be operationalized by identifying times in
which the person is vulnerable and providing the type of support needed, only when needed, in
order to break the link between the vulnerable state and adverse health outcomes.
With regard to opportunities for positive change, various learning and motivational
theories highlight the importance of concepts such as shaping (i.e., training by reinforcing
successively improving approximations of a desired behavior: Bouton, 2007; Ferster & Skinner,
1957) and teachable moments (i.e., a time when a person is more likely to internalize information
and take action; Fisher, Piazza, & Roane, 2011; Murimi et al., 2014; Leist & Kristofco, 1990).
The underlying assumption is that in order to facilitate improvement in some behavioral or
cognitive domain, it is important to identify transient oportunities for learning and improvement
and provide the type of support needed, only when needed in order to gradually move the
person’s actions/cognitions in the desired direction. Here, JIT support can be operationalized by
identifying real-life oppotunitites for change and immediately providing the type of support
needed to capitalize on these oportunities, only when such oportunities arise.
State of receptivity. To further minimize waste and accommodate the real-life setting in
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 7
which support is often needed, it is critical to ensure that the person is in a state where s/he is
receptive to the support needed. Integrating research in the area of supportive communication
and ubiquitous computing (e.g., Ford & Ellis, 1998; McIntosh, Seaton, & Jeffrey, 2007;
Resnicow, Baranowski, Ahluwalia, & Braithwaite, 1998; Sarker et al., 2014), we define a state
of receptivity as a restricted time interval in which the person can receive, process, and use the
type of support needed. A variety of facets can impact receptivity, and existing work can help
guide thinking about this concept.
The dual process theory of supportive communication outcomes (Burleson, 2009),
provides a logical foundation for understanding receptivity, suggesting that this construct is a
function of the interplay between two key elements. The first element-- the nature of support--
includes features such as the type of supportive content (which might be more or less demanding
in terms of reflective processing, depending on facets such as structure, length and complexity),
and the presence of cues (i.e., paraverbal and/or nonverbal aspects of support, that trigger
heuristics, associations, or sensations relevant to the situation, and hence are less cognitively
demanding: see also Evans, 2008; Castelo et al., 2012). The second element -- the recipient’s
ability and/or motivation to process the support provided -- can be influenced by relatively stable
characteristics (e.g., attachment style, locus of control, age, cognitive complexity, and working
memory capacity) and more dynamic/situational factors (e.g., the severity of problem, timing,
emotions, location and presence/absence of attention distracters) (Burleson, 2009).
To improve a person’s motivation and ability to process and use the type of support
needed, when needed, research in human-computer interaction articulates ways to improve the
overall usability and enjoyment of using mHealth and ubiquitous computing interventions. For
example, Consolvo, McDonald, and Landay (2009) generated eight design guidelines (e.g.,
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 8
abstract and reflective, unobtrusive, possible to be used in public) that provide heuristics for
improving receptivity to mHealth interventions by ensuring that support is designed to be
conducive in the moment it is needed. Other research has focused on how balance between
perceived usefulness/value and perceived burden influences one’s motivation to use the support
provided (e.g., Or & Karsh, 2009; Polonsky, Fisher, Hessler, & Edelman, 2014), as well as on
heuristics for simplifying supportive content in order to reduce burden (Fogg, 2009).
An important facet to consider with regard to receptivity is the ethics of intervening in a
real-life setting (Capron & Spruijt-Metz, 2014). Ethical considerations such as privacy,
confidentiality, safety and the general welfare of the recipient might lead to the decision not to
provide support even though it is needed (Kjeldskov, Skov, Als, & Høegh, 2004). For example,
when the person is driving a car, it might not be safe to deliver support; when s/he is in a
meeting, support can be disruptive; and when s/he is around other people, providing certain types
of support (e.g., feedback) might jeopardize the person’s privacy (De Costa et al., 2010).
Beyond this, a variety of other theories and empirical evidence can help explain
receptivity. Although a full discussion of these is beyond the scope of the current manuscript (see
King, Currie, & Petersen, 2014; Yatchmenoff, 2005; Staudt, 2007; Naughton, Jamison, & Sutton,
2013), this line of research builds the foundation for future research aiming to identify times at
which a person might be more or less receptive to specific types of support.
Adaptation. The discussion above suggests that in the context of health behavior
interventions, JIT support can be operationalized by offering the right type of support only when
the person is (a) vulnerable or open to positive changes, and (b) receptive to the support needed.
This requires a strategy for adapting the type (or dose/modality) and timing of support.
The distinctions between targeted, tailored, personalized, and adaptive interventions are
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 9
important ones, yet the terms are often used interchangeably in research literature. Moreover, the
same terminology often captures different meanings in different fields1. To standardize the
terminology, we use the term individualization to capture the use of information from the
individual to make decisions about when, where and how to intervene. Additionally, we
distinguish between individualization that is static, where relatively stable information from the
person (e.g., gender, baseline severity of symptoms) is used to make intervention-related
decisions (e.g., to offer intervention package A or B); and dynamic, where time-varying
information from the person (e.g., changes in psychological distress, response to an intervention,
intervention adherence) is used to make intervention decisions repeatedly in the course of the
intervention (e.g., changing the type, dosage, or timing of intervention delivery). The term
adaptive is used to describe this dynamic form of individualization (Collins et al., 2004).
Building on the above terminology, we conceptualize the JITAI as an intervention design
that uses a dynamic form of individualization to operationalize the provision of JIT support.
Specifically, JITAIs operationalize the individualization of the selection and delivery of
intervention options based on ongoing assessments of the individual’s state and ecological
context, with the goal to offer the right type of support precisely when, and only when, the
person is in a state of vulnerability/opportunity and receptivity.
JITAIs become increasingly possible with the growing availability of technology such as
wearable and ubiquitous computing sensors (e.g., wearable activity monitors, smartwatches,
home automation and tracking systems such as a smart thermometers), mobile-phone-based
sensing (e.g., accelerometry, GPS, light sensors, microphones), digital footprints (e.g., social
1 For example, the term “personalized” had different meanings in medical research (i.e., the use of diagnostic tools to identify specific biological markers to help determine which medical treatments will be best for each patient; PMC: Personalized Medicine Coalition) compared to health communication research, (i.e., describing the use of a person's name to draw attention to an otherwise generic message; Kreuter, Strecher & Glassman, 1999).
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 10
media interactions, email, digital calendars), and low-effort self-reporting (e.g., ecological
momentary assessment [EMA] and more advanced low-burden opportunities available via
technologies like smartwatches). The portability and pervasive nature of these devices make it
possible to monitor the individual anytime and to identify states of vulnerability/opportunity and
receptivity at any given moment (Hekler, Klasnja, Traver, & Hendriks, 2013).
Elements of a JITAI
With the conceptual purpose of a JITAI established, we now turn to describing the
elements of a JITAI, to help ground our pragmatic framework. A JITAI includes 6 key elements:
a distal outcome, proximal outcomes, decision points, intervention options, tailoring variables,
and decision rules (Nahum-Shani et al., 2014). The distal outcome is the ultimate goal the JITAI
is intended to achieve. The proximal outcomes are the short-term goals the intervention is
intended to achieve, and are often mediators of the distal outcome. Decision points are times at
which an intervention option is selected based on currently available information (e.g., at 2pm,
every 3 minutes). Intervention options are the array of possible type/dose/timing of support that
might be employed at any given decision point. Tailoring variables are baseline and time-varying
information that informs which intervention option to offer at each decision point (e.g., levels of
urge, location, daily drinking). Finally, decision rules are used to operationalize the
individualization by specifying which intervention option to offer to whom and when.
---------------Figure 1
----------------
For example, consider JITAI #1 in Figure 1, where the decision rule is designed to reduce
prolonged sitting (distal outcome) among office workers, by encouraging them to take active
breaks (proximal outcome). There is a decision point every 5 minutes; the tailoring variable is
the current bout of accumulated uninterrupted computer activity; the intervention options are
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 11
either to recommend movement, or to provide nothing; and the decision rule links information
from the individual (tailoring variable) to specific intervention options, by specifying 30 minutes
as the cut-point of the tailoring variable that determines whether the individual should be offered
either a recommendation or nothing.
To summarize, a JITAI is an intervention design that employs dynamic individualization
(i.e., adaptation) to facilitate the provision of JIT support. To construct JITAIs, it is important to
clearly understand and articulate the key elements, namely the distal outcome, the proximal
outcome(s), decision point(s), tailoring variable(s), intervention options, and decision rule(s).
However, such understanding is well-beyond current behavioral theories and empirical evidence.
The technology-science gap
Current health behavior theories and related empirical evidence paint a largely static
picture of human behavior, cognition and emotions; they fail to capture the dynamic processes
underlying the emergence of a vulnerable state or the adoption and maintenance of healthy
behaviors (Spruijt-Metz et al., under review). Even dynamic models that acknowledge the role of
episodic factors in health behavior processes (e.g., the dynamic model of relapse; Witkiewitz &
Marlatt, 2004) do not specify the temporal nature of each factor in a way that informs when and
how to intervene. Although many health behavioral models acknowledge individual differences
in response to treatment, in most cases these models can only inform the most basic form of
individualization (i.e., they use single time point factors like age, gender, or baseline symptom
severity to make intervention decisions) rather than the dynamic individualization required to
operationalize JIT support. Finally, existing intervention models often adopt a one-size-fits-all
approach to intervention provision (Drotar & Lemanek, 2001; Marcus et al., 2000; Sorensen,
Emmons, Hunt, & Johnston, 1998), failing to provide actionable insights with regard to the
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 12
various elements of individualization articulated above. A major step in building the theoretical
and empirical foundation for creating effective JITAIs is to articulate a pragmatic framework
guided by specific questions that must be answered to create a JITAI. These specific questions
can help develop and refine existing theories and to inform prioritization of future studies aiming
to construct JITAIs. Below, we offer a set of pragmatic questions to guide the process of
establishing a scientific model that can inform the construction of JITAIs.
New pragmatic framework
To build high quality JITAIs, theoretical and empirical evidence should be organized into
a scientific model that can help investigators identify and devise a plan to address states of
vulnerability/ opportunity and receptivity. The following questions can be used to facilitate the
development of such a model. We recommend that investigators first address these questions in
the suggested order, and then refine the model by addressing them again in reverse order.
Implied here is the acknowledgement that the development of a scientific model is an iterative
process that will likely benefit from examining the problem from multiple perspectives. For
illustration, we will use a hypothetical example in which an investigator wishes to build an
intervention for full-time employees between the ages of 30-65 who exhibit hazardous drinking2.
(1) Who are you trying to help? A logical foundation for constructing scientific models is to
identify a target population and, if possible, articulate key attributes of the target population that
should be considered in the context of support provision (e.g., employed individuals might be
unable to engage in interventions that require more than a few minutes during the work day).
This step can be aided by using formative work, such as clinical experience with the target
population and evidence based on user-centered design methods (e.g., interviews, observation,
2 Hazardous (or “at-risk”) drinking is defined as drinking above the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism low risk guidelines: ≤14 drinks per week and ≤ 4 drinks per occasion for men, and ≤ 7 drinks per week and ≤ 3 drinks per occasion for women.
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 13
prototyping to elicit opinions; Buxton, 2010; Rogers, Sharp, & Preece, 2012).
(2) What is the distal outcome of the JITAI? This step involves articulating a clinically
meaningful goal. In our hypothetical example, a distal outcome might be to transition employees
who engage in hazardous drinking to non-hazardous drinking patterns in the course of a year.
(3) What factors impact the distal outcome? This step involves using available theories and
empirical evidence to identify key factors (e.g., direct predictors, mediators, and moderators) that
likely influence the distal outcome and to articulate their general structure. The goal is to
establish an initial, relatively static model that can be further developed in more dynamic
theorizing. Returning to our illustrative example, the generic model in Figure 2 builds on
evidence in the area of employee drinking (e.g., Bamberger & Bacharach, 2014; Bacharach,
Bamberger, & Doveh, 2008; Wang, Liu, Zhan, & Shi, 2010) to suggest a process wherein work-
related stressors (stress exposure) increase hazardous drinking by generating psychological
distress (i.e., discomforting mental state experienced in response to stress exposure; Kessler,
1979). This process is expected to attenuate to the extent that the employee is characterized by
high coping capacity (i.e., an overarching construct capturing one’s ability to effectively invest
cognitive/behavioral efforts to manage external and/or internal demands; Lazarus, 1993).
---------------Figure 2
----------------
(4) What is the temporal progression of the key factors towards the distal outcome? This
involves translating the relatively static model established above into a more dynamic model that
better incorporates the element of time into the theorizing. Because this is a unique and essential
step in the process of establishing a useful model for constructing a JITAI, we describe this step
in great detail, providing an organizing scheme.
Our organizing scheme requires scientists to specify the temporal progression of key
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 14
variables towards the distal outcome. The term temporal progression refers to the way in which
the process leading to the distal outcome unfolds over time and what role each key factor plays
in this process. Note that progression is not always linear or straightforward3. The task of
describing the temporal progression can be simplified by using time scales to organize the key
factors and their effects (Spruijt-Metz et al., under review).
Building on theories in organizational research (Zaheer, Albert & Zaheer, 1999), we
define a time scale as the size of the temporal intervals used to build or test a theory about a
process, pattern, phenomenon, or event. Time scales partition the temporal continuum into units,
and can be conceptualized as levels in a hierarchy, with lower levels representing shorter time
scales, and higher levels representing longer time scales. For example, hours can be
conceptualized as lower level units nested within a day, and as a higher level unit within which
minutes are nested. The same phenomenon can be associated with several types of time scales.
Moreover, the meaning of the phenomenon and the relationships between factors might vary
depending on the time scale (Zaheer et al., 1999).
In Figure 3 we offer an approach for using time scales to organize existing evidence in a
way that can describe the progression towards the distal outcome and enable investigators to
identify open scientific questions that require further investigation. This approach involves (a)
identifying different time scales, within which the process leading to the distal outcome might
unfold; and (b) specifying what aspects of the process are likely to occur within each time scale,
using key factors and effects at a lower level (i.e., shorter) time scale. For example, for a monthly
time scale, investigators can specify what aspects of the process leading to the distal outcome are
3 For example, chronic disorders like depression and substance use follow a waxing and waning course, involving periods of remission followed by symptom recurrence and exacerbation or relapse (and vice versa). Similarly, learning a new skill is not a linear process. “The learning brain naturally assimilates concepts in a spiraling, progressive manner” (Hamid, 2001: 315), and the pace of learning is parabolic in nature, with relatively slow early progress followed by more rapid learning (Case & Gunstone, 2002).
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 15
likely to occur in the course of a month, using factors and effects that occur weekly or biweekly.
Within each selected time scale, the focus should be on describing how key factors and
effects are ordered and related over time, namely the dynamics expected within each time scale.
To facilitate this, we organize the time scale hierarchy as a pyramid. This structure can aid in
describing (a) how factors and effects are ordered and related within each time scale; (b) how
factors and effects accumulate over time from lower level (e.g., minutes) to higher level units
(e.g., hours); and (c) how factors and effects that occur at a higher level (e.g., a year) can affect
variables and effects that occur later, at a lower level (e.g., a month).
Returning to our illustrative example, the hypothetical model in Figure 3 builds on
theoretical and empirical evidence on stress, coping, and employee drinking to specify the
expected dynamics within an hour, day, week, month and a year4. As very limited empirical
evidence exists concerning the ordering of stressors, psychological distress, and drinking
behaviors (Armeli, Todd, & Mohr, 2005), this model relies heavily on existing theories and
logic. Still, this exercise, by design, is meant to facilitate better understanding of existing gaps in
the literature. For simplicity, the process in Figure 3 begins with hours as the higher level units,
seeking to describe aspects of the process that unfold between minutes (or several minutes)5. We
then move up the time scale from hours to days, weeks, months and years (where a year is the
unit of the distal outcome), seeking to specify the expected dynamics within each time scale.
---------------Figure 3
----------------
For example, sub-model #1 in Figure 3 seeks to describe the expected dynamics within
an hour and between minutes (or several minutes). Here we build on research suggesting that
4 For illustrative purposes we opted to specify a relatively simple dynamic model; however more complex models can be specified. 5 Neurobiological stress reactivity can occur within faster time scales, such as seconds (Obradović et al., 2010).
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 16
work-related hassles (e.g., losing things, traffic jams, arguments, disappointments, and workload;
see Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981) can occur at any given minute and generate
rather immediate psychological distress (de Andrade, Viana, Abrão, Bittencourt, & Céspedes,
2014; Sinha et al., 2003). This immediate stress reaction can be attenuated to the extent that the
person’s state coping capacity is high (i.e., the extent to which, at a given time point, the person
is able to employ adaptive strategies to manage psychological stress; Gil., 2005; Gil & Caspi,
2006; Lazarus, 1993). State coping capacity is a function of situational variables (which are
important but for simplicity are not captured in this model), but also a function of the trait coping
capacity of the person (Roesch et al., 2010)--defined as a variety of more stable attributes (e.g.,
hardiness, self-esteem, dispositional optimism) that contribute to the management of stress
(Hobfoll, 1989; Kessler et al., 1985).
Second, sub-model #2 seeks to describe aspects of the process leading to employee
drinking that unfold over a day, using hours as the unit for variables and effects. Here, a cyclical
process is expected, whereby hassles that occur or accumulate over an hour lead to increased
psychological distress in the following hour or few hours (e.g., via perseverative cognition;
Brosschot, Gerin, & Thayer, 2006; Brosschot, VanDijk, & Thayer, 2007). This in turn reduces
the person’s hourly (state) capacity to cope with future stressors (Bar-Tal, Cohen-Mansfield, &
Golander, 1998), which leads to increased subsequent stress exposure (i.e., stress generation
hypothesis; Liu & Alloy, 2010) and stress-reactivity. This model also predicts that psychological
distress accumulating during work hours (i.e., over a work day) might lead to drinking behaviors
at the end of a work day to alleviate distress (Conger, 1956; see also Mohr et al., 2001; Tennen,
Affleck, Armeli, & Carney, 2000), with this process likely to attenuate to the extent that the
employee is characterized by high (Hedeker, Flay, & Petraitis, 1996) trait coping capacity
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 17
(Armelli et al., 2000; Armeli, Todd, & Mohr, 2005).
In a similar manner, sub-model #3 seeks to describe aspects of the process leading to
employee drinking that unfold in the course of a week, using days as the unit for variables and
effects; sub-model #4 seeks to describe aspects of the process that unfold over a month, using
weeks as the unit for variables and effects; and sub-model #5 seeks to describe aspects of the
process that unfold over a year, using months as the unit for variables and effects. Note that in
the latter, it is expected that monthly distress, or distress accumulated over several months can
attenuate the trait coping capacity of the person. This is based on research suggesting that
sustained or repetitive exposure to stressors (i.e., chronic stress) may trigger maladaptive
changes in some individuals, producing a vulnerable phenotype that facilitates increased risk of
illness (Blugeot et al., 2011; de Kloet, Joels, & Holsboer, 2005). This illustrates how dynamics
that accumulate over a long period of time (e.g., months) can facilitate momentary vulnerability
(e.g., poor state coping capacity) by affecting more stable aspects of vulnerability (e.g., the more
generalized coping capacity of the person).
The pyramid structure and the depth of the boxes describing the factors in Figure 3 are
used to capture, in a simple manner, the general accumulation of variables and processes over
time. For example, minute-level psychological distress (in sub-model #1) can accumulate over an
hour, contributing to hourly psychological distress (in sub-model #2); and the cyclical stress-
reactivity process described in sub-model #2 (using hours as the unit) can accumulate over a
work day to contribute to daily psychological distress (in sub-model #3).
In sum, this illustrative example articulates how the use of time scales can help shift the
relatively static model structures currently guiding intervention research into more dynamic
model structures that better incorporate the role of time. The questions below clarify how this
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 18
dynamic model structure can be used to inform the development of a JITAI.
(5) What are contender proximal outcomes? Here, the goal is to select factors that can capture
intermediate progress towards the distal outcome (i.e., proximal outcomes). This is an important
step because the proximal outcomes and their time scale guide the selection of intervention
options and their adaptation. Moreover, for study purposes, the proximal outcomes provide
intermediate metrics of response or success in achieving progression from the current state (e.g.,
hazardous drinking) to the desired distal outcome (e.g., non-hazardous drinking patterns).
To select the proximal outcomes, investigators can build on the dynamic model structure
established in the previous step, beginning with the lowest level (shortest) time scale as a starting
point for this iterative process. Implicit to this suggestion is the acknowledgement that targeting
proximal outcomes at the shortest possible timescale might (a) facilitate early prevention of
“snowballing effects,” namely preventing a short-term, single occurrence (e.g., lapse) or
experience (e.g., negative mood) from escalating into an adverse health outcome (e.g., total
relapse; Bukowski, Laursen, & Hoza, 2010; Marlatt & George, 1984; Sapienza & Masten, 2011),
and/or (b) lead to improved scaffolding strategies that target short-term progress and goal
attainment (Drews et al., 2007; Roscoe & Chi, 2007).
In the context of our illustrative example, based on the model above, investigators might
begin selecting proximal outcomes by attending to possible outcomes at the minute level (e.g.,
minute-level distress), then possible outcomes at the hour level (e.g., hour-level coping capacity
in the form of hourly self-regulation of attention; Sonnentag, Binnewies & Ohly, 2012;
Cuningham, Brandon, & Frydenberg, 2002; or self-regulatory fatigue; Liu, Lanza, Vasilenko, &
Piper, 2013), then possible outcomes at the daily level (e.g., drinking behaviors at the end of the
work day) and so on. The ultimate goal is to select those proximal outcomes that in aggregate are
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 19
expected to have the most meaningful impact on the distal outcome, and that can be influenced
in a meaningful manner by providing support. A JITAI can target multiple proximal outcomes.
(6) What factors mark a state of vulnerability/opportunity with respect to each of the
candidate proximal outcomes? Here, the goal is to identify when and under what conditions the
person is likely to be more vulnerable to experiencing adverse outcomes, or is more open to
positive changes. Adverse outcomes and positive changes in this context are defined with respect
to each of the candidate proximal outcomes. Identifying factors that mark (i.e., capture) a state of
vulnerability/opportunity given the selected proximal outcomes has implications on the selection
of decision points in a JITAI (as well as on individualization, as we describe below).
In the context of our illustrative example, the model summarized in Figure 3 suggests that
exposure to hassles at any given minute might lead to immediate reactivity in the form of
psychological distress (a candidate proximal outcome). Hence, minute-level exposure can mark a
state of vulnerability to immediate psychological distress. In this setting, selecting minute-level
distress as a proximal outcome implies that there might be a decision point at every given
minute, because the person might be in a state of vulnerability at any given minute. Additionally,
hourly psychological distress is expected to negatively impact the person’s hourly coping
capacity (a candidate proximal outcome). In other words, high levels of psychological distress in
a given hour can mark a state of vulnerability for reduced coping capacity in the subsequent
hour. In this setting, selecting hour-level coping capacity as a proximal outcome implies that
there might be a decision point at least at every given hour.
(7) What possible intervention options can affect the candidate proximal outcomes? Here,
the focus is on identifying intervention options that (a) can affect the candidate proximal
outcomes and (b) can be delivered in a JIT manner (i.e., precisely when the person is an a state of
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 20
opportunity/vulnerability vis-à-vis the proximal outcome).
An important part of this process is to explore whether and what intervention options
might be feasible and effective given the timescale of each candidate proximal outcome. To
explain this idea, consider our illustrative example. With respect to the lowest level proximal
outcome (i.e., distress at the minute level), given the immediacy and automaticity of
physiological reactivity to stress (Allen, Blascovich, Tomaka, & Kelsey, 1991; Smeets et al.,
2012; Sinha et al., 2003), it might not be feasible to intervene in a JIT manner (i.e., precisely
when the person is vulnerable) to attenuate such relatively immediate response to distress.
However, in such a setting, other forms of support (e.g., training sessions designed to help the
person learn adaptive coping skills), might be more suitable for improving this proximal outcome
although such support is not offered precisely, and only upon exposure to hassles (see Lindquist
& Cooper, 1999; Cunningham, Brandon, & Frydenberg, 2002).
With respect to the hour-level candidate proximal outcome (i.e., state coping capacity),
empirical evidence suggests that brief interventions in the form of recommendations/ suggestions
that integrate elements of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and/or acceptance and
commitment therapy (ACT) can be delivered in a timely manner to help individuals regulate
hourly or daily negative emotions (e.g., Witkiewitz et al., 2014; Norberg et al., 2013; Proudfoot
et al., 2013; Morris et al., 2010) and break the link between hour-level distress and reduced
coping capacity. In the absence of empirically based intervention options that can be delivered
JIT (i.e., precisely when, and only when the person is in a state of vulnerability/ opportunity) to
influence a proximal outcome, investigators can either direct research efforts towards building
and evaluating new intervention options or attend to other candidate proximal outcomes (e.g.,
that change on a longer time scale, such as drinking behaviors at the end of a work day).
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 21
Finally, given that in a JIT setting, support should be provided only when the person is
(a) in a state of vulnerability/opportunity; and (b) receptive, it is important to include a “provide
nothing” intervention option, to minimize waste, intrusiveness, and burden (Nahum-Shani et al.,
2014). In the current example, assume that two intervention options are considered: (1)
recommendation to engage in emotion-regulation techniques building on principals of CBT
and/or ACT (Yovel, Mor, & Shakarov, 2014); and (2) provide nothing.
(8) What tailoring variables can be used to decide what intervention option to offer? Here
the goal is to identify the type of information from the individual that can be used to decide
whether at a given time point providing one of the selected intervention options over another will
lead to better proximal outcome(s). The selected tailoring variables should include factors that
mark a state of vulnerability/opportunity with respect to the selected proximal outcome, as well
as factors that mark a state of receptivity to the selected intervention options. Throughout,
practical implications related to the feasibility of properly measuring the tailoring variables at the
selected time scale should be taken into account (see Kumar at el., 2013 for more details).
In the context of our example, assume that the investigator selected hour-level coping
capacity as the proximal outcome. The dynamic model in Figure 3 suggests that hourly
psychological distress can mark a state of vulnerability for reduced hour-level coping capacity.
This implies that information about the level of psychological distress might be useful in
identifying times at which the employee would benefit from a recommendation to engage in
emotion-regulation techniques, compared to providing nothing. In other words, information
about hourly psychological distress might be used to identify time points at which offering a
recommendation would lead to a better proximal outcome than offering nothing.
Additionally, factors that mark a state of receptivity to the selected intervention options
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 22
should be considered as tailoring variables. In our example, certain factors might be obvious. For
example, consider a situation where wearable sensors indicate that a person experienced high
psychological distress in the past hour, but s/he is in a meeting and hence cannot process the
recommendation. In such cases, the “provide nothing” intervention option should be used given
that offering a recommendation might be disruptive and hence negatively affect the proximal
outcome. Other candidate tailoring variables might require further investigation. For example,
the number of recommendations the person received previously might lead to burden, and
extreme levels of negative affect might hinder the ability to use emotion-regulation techniques.
Additional research attention should be given to identifying tailoring variables that mark a state
of receptivity to immediate recommendations and feedback.
(9) For each possible level of the tailoring variables, which intervention option is likely to
have the desired effect on the proximal outcome? Here, the goal is to think through the
implications (benefits as well as costs) of delivering each of the selected intervention options at
various levels of the tailoring variables. In the context of our illustrative example, it is expected
that individuals who experienced high psychological distress in the past hour are likely to benefit
from a recommendation compared to providing nothing. However, there is insufficient empirical
evidence to identify the cut-point of psychological distress that differentiates when such
recommendation is indeed beneficial versus when this recommendation might not be necessary
(i.e., providing a recommendation will lead to similar or worse proximal outcome compared to
providing nothing). Further research is required to identify cut-points in various situations.
(10) What plausible decision rules can be generated to operationalize effective adaptation?
This final step involves the creation of appropriate decision rules that link all the information
above in a systematic manner. The decision rule in Figure 1 (JITAI #2) builds on some of the
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 23
ideas established above regarding our illustrative example to operationalize a JITAI aiming to
transition employees from hazardous to non-hazardous drinking patterns over one year.
Discussion
This manuscript provides a pragmatic framework for organizing empirical and theoretical
evidence into a scientific model that can guide JITAI construction. This framework builds on the
idea that in order to inform the construction of a JITAI, existing evidence should be organized in
a way that helps investigators identify and devise a plan to address states of vulnerability/
opportunity and receptivity to support. A key element in this process is using time scales to
describe the progression of key factors towards the distal outcome. However, extant empirical
evidence often does not provide insight into how key factors are ordered and related over time.
For example, the dynamic model in Figure 3, aimed to describe the expected progression
of stress, distress, and coping towards hazardous drinking over a year (the distal outcome), builds
primarily on existing theoretical approaches and logic. This is because, as noted by Tennen and
colleagues (Tennen et al., 2000: 626), “The gap between theory and research in the study of
stress, coping, and psychological adaptation has become an abyss. Whereas theoreticians develop
increasingly elegant formulations of temporally unfolding adaptational processes …
investigators continue to rely primarily on cross-sectional assessments.” This gap between
existing theories and empirical evidence makes identifying time scales and describing the
dynamics within each time scale rather challenging. Research attention should be given to
implementing study designs and analytic methods that directly inform how and why distal
outcomes unfold over time.
Studies that involve the collection of intensive longitudinal data can be highly useful in
this setting (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013). For example, study designs involving EMAs offer
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 24
many opportunities for investigating dynamics within different time scales. These studies use
immediate reporting of experiences in the everyday life of individuals, thereby achieving a high
level of data accuracy, ecological validity and representative design (Stone et al. 2007; Kaplan &
Stone, 2013). Recent advances in mobile and wearable sensors provides many opportunities for
monitoring momentary experiences with higher precision, improved sampling frequency, fewer
missing data, and reduced burden on the participant (Kumar et al., 2013).
Perhaps the biggest challenge relating to such study designs is the volume of information
they produce. As noted by Kaplan and Stone (2013), “Most psychologists were trained to use
statistical inference techniques designed for the study of agronomy in the 1930s. Although these
methods have become much more sophisticated, inferential statistics can be meaningless for data
sets composed of hundreds of millions of data points.” Contemporary approaches involving data
mining, machine learning, control systems engineering techniques, and other modern analytic
methods are needed to allow investigators capitalize on intensive longitudinal data to identify
factors (or combinations of factors) that mark a state of vulnerability/opportunity and receptivity
(Plarre et al., 2011). Novel approaches to determining reliability and validity in the context of
intensive longitudinal data are also warranted (see detailed discussion in Kumar et al., 2013).
Further, even if empirical evidence suggests that a given factor (e.g., psychological
distress) marks state of vulnerability to a specific proximal outcome (e.g., it is highly predictive
of poor state coping capacity), there is often insufficient empirical evidence concerning the cut-
point of this factor that can inform the selection of one intervention option over another.
Intensive longitudinal research designs that allow direct comparison of selected intervention
options under different levels of candidate tailoring variables are needed. For example, to
identify the levels of hourly psychological distress at which a recommendation will be more
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 25
beneficial than the alternative, an ideal study design would allow investigators to assess the
causal effect of providing a recommendation compared to the alternative on the proximal
outcome under different levels of hourly psychological distress.
Concerning receptivity, although it is clear that this multi-faceted feature plays an
important role in intervention effectiveness, very limited behavioral research has been devoted to
identifying markers of receptivity, and we have no robust models that can clarify how receptivity
can shift as a function of continued exposure to specific types of support. While insights can
likely be gleaned from the field of human-computer interaction, which focuses on ensuring
systems are useful, usable, and enjoyable (and thus provides insights on ensuring the messaging
is delivered in a way that facilitates receptivity), much more work is needed in this domain.
Future studies should be designed to allow the simultaneous investigation of various factors that
can potentially mark a state of receptivity (e.g., location, emotions, and presence of other people)
to a given type of support and investigate ways to adapt the type of support so as to foster
sustained use to counteract the law of attrition (Eysenbach, 2005). To do this, investigators
should consider collecting information following support provision, such as whether support was
received, whether it was used, attention to and attitudes about the support provided. Throughout,
ethical considerations should be reviewed and addressed, in light of the intervention options
under consideration and the population targeted.
In sum, the pragmatic framework proposed in this manuscript builds the foundation for
collecting the empirical evidence necessary for constructing high quality JITAIs. While it offers
ways to integrate and build on existing theories and traditions to inform the development of
JITAIs, it also clearly highlights the scientific questions and methodological gaps that must be
addressed in order to move the science of JITAIs forward.
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 26
Literature Cited
Allen, K. M., Blascovich, J., Tomaka, J., & Kelsey, R. M. (1991). Presence of human friends and
pet dogs as moderators of autonomic responses to stress in women. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 61(4), 582.
Armeli, S., Carney, M. A., Tennen, H., Affleck, G., & O'Neil, T. (2000). Stress and alcohol use:
A daily process examination of the stressor–vulnerability model. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 78(5), 979.
Armeli, S., Todd, M., & Mohr, C. (2005). A daily process approach to individual differences in
stress‐related alcohol use. Journal of Personality,73(6), 1657-1686.
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P. A., & Doveh, E. (2008). Firefighters, critical incidents, and
drinking to cope: the adequacy of unit-level performance resources as a source of
vulnerability and protection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 155.
Bamberger, P. A. and Bacharach, S. (2014). Retirement and the hidden epidemic: The Complex
link between aging, work disengagement and substance misuse – and what to do about it.
New York: Oxford.
Bar-tal, Y., Cohen-mansfield, J., & Golander, H. (1998). Which stress matters? The examination
of temporal aspects of stress. The Journal of psychology,132(5), 569-576.
Ben-Zeev, D., Brenner, C. J., Begale, M., Duffecy, J., Mohr, D. C., & Mueser, K. T. (2014).
Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a smartphone intervention for
schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 40(6), 1244-1253.
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 27
Blugeot, A., Rivat, C., Bouvier, E., Molet, J., Mouchard, A., Zeau, B., ... & Becker, C. (2011).
Vulnerability to depression: from brain neuroplasticity to identification of
biomarkers. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(36), 12889-12899.
Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary
and experience sampling research. Guilford Press.
Bouton, M. (2007). Learning and behavior: A contemporary synthesis. Sinauer Associates.
Brosschot, J. F., Gerin, W., & Thayer, J. F. (2006). The perseverative cognition hypothesis: A
review of worry, prolonged stress-related physiological activation, and health. Journal of
psychosomatic research, 60(2), 113-124.
Brosschot, J. F., & Thayer, J. F. (2003). Heart rate response is longer after negative emotions
than after positive emotions. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 50(3), 181-187.
Brosschot, J. F., Van Dijk, E., & Thayer, J. F. (2007). Daily worry is related to low heart rate
variability during waking and the subsequent nocturnal sleep period. International
Journal of Psychophysiology, 63(1), 39-47.
Bukowski, W. M., Laursen, B., & Hoza, B. (2010). The snowball effect: Friendship moderates
escalations in depressed affect among avoidant and excluded children. Development and
Psychopathology, 22(04), 749-757.
Burleson, B. R. (2009). Understanding the outcomes of supportive communication: A dual-
process approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(1), 21-38.
Buxton, B. (2010). Sketching user experiences: Getting the design right and the right design. San
Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 28
Canel, C., Rosen, D., & Anderson, E. A. (2000). Just-in-time is not just for manufacturing: A
service perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 100(2), 51-60.
Capron, M.A., & Spruijt-Metz, D., (2014). Behavioral economics and ethics in the physician-
patient relationship: A Possible role for mobile devices and small data. In I.G. Cohen, H.
F. Lynch & C.T. Robertson (Eds). Nudging health: Health law and behavioral economics.
Johns Hopkins University Press, in press.
Castelo, N., Reiner, P. B., & Felsen, G. (2012). Balancing autonomy and decisional
enhancement: An evidence-based approach. The American Journal of Bioethics, 12(2),
30-31.
Collins, L. M., Murphy, S. A., & Bierman, K. L. (2004). A conceptual framework for adaptive
preventive interventions. Prevention Science, 5(3), 185-196.
Conger, J. J. (1956). Reinforcement theory and the dynamics of alcoholism. Quarterly Journal of
Studies on Alcohol.
Consolvo, S., McDonald, D. W., & Landay, J. A. (2009, April). Theory-driven design strategies
for technologies that support behavior change in everyday life. In Proceedings of the
SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 405-414). ACM.
Consolvo, S., McDonald, D. W., Toscos, T., Chen, M. Y., Froelich, J., . . . Landay, J. A. (2008).
Activity sensing in the wild: A field trial of UbiFit Garden. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1797-1806).
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rathunde, K. (1993). The measurement of flow in everyday life:
Toward a theory of emergent motivation. In J. E. Jacobs (Ed.), Developmental
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 29
perspectives on motivation (Vol. 40, pp. 57-97). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press.
Cunningham, E. G., Brandon, C. M., & Frydenberg, E. (2002). Enhancing coping resources in
early adolescence through a school-based program teaching optimistic thinking
skills. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 15(4), 369-381.
Dantzig, S., Geleijnse, G., & Halteren, A. T. (2013). Toward a persuasive mobile application to
reduce sedentary behavior. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17(6), 1237-1246.
de Andrade, J. S., Viana, M. B., Abrão, R. O., Bittencourt, J. C., & Céspedes, I. C. (2014). CRF
family peptides are differently altered by acute restraint stress and chronic unpredictable
stress. Behavioural Brain Research, 271, 302-308.
De Costa, A., Shet, A., Kumarasamy, N., Ashorn, P., Eriksson, B., Bogg, L., & Diwan, V. K.
(2010). Design of a randomized trial to evaluate the influence of mobile phone reminders
on adherence to first line antiretroviral treatment in South India-the HIVIND study
protocol. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10(1), 25.
de Kloet ER, Joels M, Holsboer F (2005). Stress and the brain: From adaptation to disease.
Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 463–475.
Dennis, M. L., Scott, C. K., Funk, R. R., & Nicholson, L. (in press). A pilot study to examine the
feasibility and potential effectiveness of using smartphones to provide recovery support
for adolescents. Substance Abuse.
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 30
Drews, F. A., Picciano, P., Agutter, J., Syroid, N., Westenskow, D. R., & Strayer, D. L. (2007).
Development and evaluation of a just-in-time support system. Human Factors: The
Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 49(3), 543-551.
Drotar, D., & Lemanek, K. (2001). Steps toward a clinically relevant science of interventions in
pediatric settings: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 26(7), 385-394.
Evans, J. S. B. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition.
Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255-278.
Eysenbach, G. (2005). The law of attrition. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 7(1).
Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. East Norwalk, CT:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., & Roane, H. S. (2011). Handbook of applied behavior analysis.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Fletcher, J. D., Tobias, S., & Wisher, R. A. (2007). Learning anytime, anywhere: Advanced
distributed learning and the changing face of education. Educational Researcher, 36(2),
96-102.
Fogg, B. (Ed.). (2009). A behavior model for persuasive design. In Proceedings of the 4th
international Conference on Persuasive Technology. New York, NY: ACM.
Ford, L. A., & Ellis, B. H. (1998). A preliminary analysis of memorable support and nonsupport
messages received by nurses in acute care settings. Health Communication, 10(1), 37-63.
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 31
Frazier, G. L., Spekman, R. E., & O'neal, C. R. (1988). Just-in-time exchange relationships in
industrial markets. The Journal of Marketing, 52-67.
Gil, S. (2005). Coping style in predicting posttraumatic stress disorder among Israeli
students. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 18(4), 351-359.
Gil, S., & Caspi, Y. (2006). Personality traits, coping style, and perceived threat as predictors of
posttraumatic stress disorder after exposure to a terrorist attack: A prospective
study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 68(6), 904-909.
Gustafson, D. H., McTavish, F. M., Chih, M. Y., Atwood, A. K., Johnson, R. A., Boyle, M.
G., . . . Shah, D. (2014). A smartphone application to support recovery from alcoholism:
A randomized clinical trial. JAMA psychiatry, 71(5), 566-572.
Hekler, E., Klasnja, P., Traver, V., & Hendriks, M. (2013). Realizing effective behavioral
management of health: The metamorphosis of behavioral science methods. Pulse,
IEEE, 4(5), 29-34.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing
stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513.
Leist, J., & Kristofco, R. (1990). The changing paradigm for continuing medical education:
Importance of information on teachable moments. Bulletin of the Medical Library
Association, 78, 173–179.
Jimison, H., Gorman, P., Woods, S., Nygren, P., Walker, M., Norris, S., & Hersh, W. (2008).
Barriers and drivers of health information technology use for the elderly, chronically iII,
and underserved. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 32
Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Comparison of two modes of
stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 4(1), 1-39.
Kaplan, R. M., & Stone, A. A. (2013). Bringing the laboratory and clinic to the community:
mobile technologies for health promotion and disease prevention. Annual Review of
Psychology, 64,471-498.
Karolak, D. W., & Karolak, N. (1995). Software engineering risk management: A just-in-time
approach. IEEE Computer Society Press.
Kessler, R. C. (1979). Stress, social status, and psychological distress. Journal of Health and
Social behavior, 259-272.
Kessler, R. C., Price, R. H., & Wortman, C. B. (1985). Social factors in psychopathology: Stress,
social support, and coping processes. Annual review of psychology, 36(1), 531-572.
King, A. C., Hekler, E. B., Grieco, L. A., Winter, S. J., Sheats, J. L., Buman, M. P., . . . Cirimele,
J. (2013). Harnessing different motivational frames via mobile phones to promote daily
physical activity and reduce sedentary behavior in aging adults, PLoS One, 8(4), e62613.
King, G., Currie, M., & Petersen, P. (2014). Child and parent engagement in the mental health
intervention process: a motivational framework. Child and Adolescent Mental
Health, 19(1), 2-8.
Kjeldskov, J., Skov, M. B., Als, B. S., & Høegh, R. T. (2004). Is it worth the hassle? Exploring
the added value of evaluating the usability of context-aware mobile systems in the field.
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 33
In Mobile Human-Computer Interaction-Mobile HCI 2004 (pp. 61-73). Berlin: Springer
Heidelberg.
Kumar, S., Nilsen, W. J., Abernethy, A., Atienza, A., Patrick, K., Pavel, M., . . . Spruijt-Metz, D.
(2013). Mobile health technology evaluation: The mhealth evidence workshop. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 45(2), 228-236.
Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Coping theory and research: past, present, and future. Psychosomatic
medicine, 55(3), 234-247.
Leist, J., & Kristofco, R. (1990). The changing paradigm for continuing medical education:
Importance of information on teachable moments. Bulletin of the Medical Library
Association, 78, 173–179.
Lindquist, T. L., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). Using lifestyle and coping to reduce job stress and
improve health in ‘at risk’office workers. Stress and Health, 15(3), 143-152.
Liu, R. T., & Alloy, L. B. (2010). Stress generation in depression: A systematic review of the
empirical literature and recommendations for future study. Clinical Psychology
Review, 30(5), 582-593.
Liu, X., Li, R., Lanza, S. T., Vasilenko, S. A., & Piper, M. (2013). Understanding the role of
cessation fatigue in the smoking cessation process. Drug and Alcohol
Dependence, 133(2), 548-555.
Marcus, B. H., Forsyth, L. H., Stone, E. J., Dubbert, P. M., McKenzie, T. L., Dunn, A. L., &
Blair, S. N. (2000). Physical activity behavior change: Issues in adoption and
maintenance. Health Psychology, 19(1S), 32.
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 34
Marlatt, G. A., & George, W. H. (1984). Relapse prevention: Introduction and overview of the
model. British Journal of Addiction, 79(3), 261-273.
McGowan, J., Hogg, W., Campbell, C., & Rowan, M. (2008). Just-in-time information improved
decision-making in primary care: A randomized controlled trial. PloS one, 3(11), e3785.
McIntosh, B. S., Seaton, R. A. F., & Jeffrey, P. (2007). Tools to think with? Towards
understanding the use of computer-based support tools in policy relevant
research. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22(5), 640-648.
Mohr, C. D., Armeli, S., Tennen, H., Carney, M. A., Affleck, G., & Hromi, A. (2001). Daily
interpersonal experiences, context, and alcohol consumption: crying in your beer and
toasting good times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 489.
Morris, M. E., Kathawala, Q., Leen, T. K., Gorenstein, E. E., Guilak, F., Labhard, M., &
Deleeuw, W. (2010). Mobile therapy: Case study evaluations of a cell phone application
for emotional self-awareness. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 12, e10.
Murimi, M. W., Chrisman, M. S., Hughes, K., Taylor, C., Kim, Y., & McAllister, T. L. (2014).
Effects of school-based point-of-testing counselling on health status variables among
rural adolescents. Health Education Journal, 0017896914552000.
Nahum-Shani, I., Smith S., Tewari, A., Witkiewitz K., Collins, L. M., Spring, B., & Murphy, S.
(2014). Just-in- time adaptive interventions (JITAIs): An organizing framework for
ongoing health behavior support (Methodology Center technical report No. 14-126).
University Park, PA: The Methodology Center, Penn State.
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 35
Naughton, F., Jamison, J., & Sutton, S. (2013). Attitudes towards SMS text message smoking
cessation support: A qualitative study of pregnant smokers. Health Education Research,
cyt057.
Norberg, M. M., Rooke, S. E., Albertella, L., Copeland, J., Kavanagh, D. J., & Lau, A. Y.
(2013). The first mHealth app for managing cannabis use: Gauging its potential
helpfulness. Journal of Addictive Behaviors Therapy & Rehabilitation. Advance online
publication. 10.4172/2324-9005.1000117
Or, C. K., & Karsh, B. T. (2009). A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health
information technology. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 16(4),
550-560.
Patrick, K., Raab, F., Adams, M. A., Dillon, L., Zabinski, M., Rock, C. L., . . . Norman, G. J.
(2009). A text message–based intervention for weight loss: Randomized controlled trial.
Journal of Medical Internet Research, 11(1), e1.
Plarre, K., Raij, A., Hossain, S. M., Ali, A. A., Nakajima, M., Al'absi, M., ... & Wittmers, L. E.
(2011, April). Continuous inference of psychological stress from sensory measurements
collected in the natural environment. In Proceedings From the 10th International
Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN) (pp. 97-108). Chicago,
IL: IEEE
Polonsky, W. H., Fisher, L., Hessler, D., & Edelman, S. V. (2014). What is so tough about self‐monitoring of blood glucose? Perceived obstacles among patients with Type 2
diabetes. Diabetic Medicine, 31(1), 40-46.
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 36
Proudfoot, J., Clarke, J., Birch, M. R., Whitton, A. E., Parker, G., Manicavasagar, V., … Hadzi-
Pavlovic, D. (2013). Impact of a mobile phone and web program on symptom and
functional outcomes for people with mild-to-moderate depression, anxiety and stress: A
randomised controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry, 13, 312.
Resnicow, K., Baranowski, T., Ahluwalia, J. S., & Braithwaite, R. L. (1998). Cultural sensitivity
in public health: Defined and demystified. Ethnicity & Disease, 9(1), 10-21.
Riley, W. T. , Obermayer, J., & Jean-Mary, J. (2008). Internet and mobile phone text messaging
intervention for college smokers. journal of american college health, 57(2), 245-248.
Riley, W. T., Rivera, D. E., Atienza, A. A., Nilsen, W., Allison, S. M., & Mermelstein, R.
(2011). Health behavior models in the age of mobile interventions: Are our theories up to
the task?. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 1(1), 53-71.
Roesch, S. C., Aldridge, A. A., Stocking, S. N., Villodas, F., Leung, Q., Bartley, C. E., & Black,
L. J. (2010). Multilevel factor analysis and structural equation modeling of daily diary
coping data: Modeling trait and state variation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45(5),
767-789.
Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., & Preece, J. (2012). Interaction design - beyond human-computer
interaction (3rd Ed.). Wiley.
Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and
knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review of Educational
Research, 77(4), 534-574.
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 37
Sapienza, J. K., & Masten, A. S. (2011). Understanding and promoting resilience in children and
youth. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 24(4), 267-273.
Sarker, H., Sharmin, M., Ali, A. A., Rahman, M. M., Bari, R., Hossain, S. M., & Kumar, S.
(2014, September). Assessing the availability of users to engage in just-in-time
intervention in the natural environment. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International
Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 909-920). New York,
NY: ACM.
Sinha, R., Talih, M., Malison, R., Cooney, N., Anderson, G. M., & Kreek, M. J. (2003).
Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and sympatho-adreno-medullary responses during
stress-induced and drug cue-induced cocaine craving states.
Psychopharmacology, 170(1), 62-72.
Smeets, T., Cornelisse, S., Quaedflieg, C. W., Meyer, T., Jelicic, M., & Merckelbach, H. (2012).
Introducing the Maastricht acute stress test (MAST): A quick and non-invasive approach
to elicit robust autonomic and glucocorticoid stress responses.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37(12), 1998-2008.
Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Ohly, S. (2012). Event-sampling methods in occupational
heatlh psychology. In Robert R. Sinclair, Mo Wang, Lois E. Tetrick (Ed.), Research
methods in occupational health psychology: Measurement, design, and data analysis (pp.
208-228). New York, NY: Routledge.
Sorensen, G., Emmons, K., Hunt, M. K., & Johnston, D. (1998). Implications of the results of
community intervention trials. Annual Review of Public Health, 19(1), 379-416.
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 38
Spruijt-Metz. D., Hekler, E. B., Saranummi, N., Intille, S., Korhonen, I., Nilsen, W., … Pavel,
M. (under review). Building new computational models to support health behavior
change and maintenance: New opportunities in behavioral research.
Spruijt-Metz, D., & Nilsen, W. (2014). Dynamic models of behavior for just-in-time adaptive
interventions. Pervasive Computing, IEEE, 13(3), 13-17.
Spruijt-Metz, D., Nilsen, W., & Pavel, M. (2014). mHealth for behavior change and monitoring.
In S. Adibi (Ed.), mHealth multidisciplinary verticals (pp. 120-132). New York, NY:
CRC.
Staudt, M. (2007). Treatment engagement with caregivers of at-risk children: Gaps in research
and conceptualization. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16(2), 183-196.
Stone, A. A., Shiffman S., Atienza, A., & Nebling, L., (Eds.). (2007). The science of real-time
data capture: Self-reports in health research. New York: Oxford University Press
Tennen, H., Affleck, G., Armeli, S., & Carney, M. A. (2000). A daily process approach to
coping: Linking theory, research, and practice. American Psychologist, 55(6), 626.
Van Merriënboer, J. J., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner's
mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 5-13.
Wang, M., Liu, S., Zhan, Y., & Shi, J. (2010). Daily work–family conflict and alcohol use:
Testing the cross-level moderation effects of peer drinking norms and social
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 377.
Witkiewitz, K., & Marlatt, G. A. (2004). Relapse prevention for alcohol and drug problems: That
was zen, this is tao. American Psychologist, 59(4), 224-235.
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 39
Witkiewitz, K., Desai, S. A., Bowen, S., Leigh, B. C., Kirouac, M., & Larimer, M. E. (2014).
Development and evaluation of a mobile intervention for heavy drinking and smoking
among college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28(3), 639-650.
Yatchmenoff, D. K. (2005). Measuring client engagement from the client's perspective in
nonvoluntary child protective services. Research on Social Work Practice, 15, 84–96.
Yovel, I., Mor, N., & Shakarov, H. (2014). Examination of the core cognitive components of
cognitive behavioral therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy: An analogue
investigation. Behavior Therapy, 45, 482-494.
Zaheer, S., Albert, S., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Time scales and organizational theory. Academy of
Management Review, 24(4), 725-741.
Zubin, J., & Spring, B. (1977). Vulnerability: A new view of schizophrenia. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 86(2), 103.
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 40
Figure 1. Examples of Decision Rules
JITAI #1: based on SitCoach; Dantzig, Geleijnse, & Halteren (2013)
Distal Outcome: Prolonged Sitting
Proximal Outcome: Active Breaks
Decision Point: Every 5 minutes
Decision Rule: If current bout of accumulated uninterrupted computer activity > 30 minutes
Then, Intervention option = {recommend movement}
Else if current accumulated uninterrupted computer activity ≤ 30 minutes
Then, Intervention option = {provide nothing}
JITAI #2: based on our illustrative example
Distal Outcome: transitioning from hazardous to non-hazardous drinking over 12 months.
Proximal Outcome: Hourly coping capacity
Timescale of the Decision Point: Every hour
Decision Rule: If psychological distress >=X; and
{Driving = NO, meeting = NO, around other people=NO,
and # of recommendations received since morning < Z}
Then, intervention option= recommend emotion-regulation
Else if psychological distress < X; or
{Driving=YES, or Meeting=YES, or around other people=YES, or # of
recommendations received since morning >= Z}
Then, intervention option= “provide nothing”
Tailoring Variable Intervention
Options
Cut-point of tailoring variable
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 41
Figure 2. Hypothetical Generic Model Describing Key Factors Leading to Drinking
Psychological distress
Hazardous Drinking
Coping capacity
Stressors
+
+
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 42
Figure 3. Hypothetical Dynamic Model of Employee Stress Reactivity, Coping and Drinking
Time scale
Sub-Model #5: What aspects of the process unfold over a year, between months?
Sub-Model #4: What aspects of the process unfold over a month, between weeks?
Sub-Model #3: What aspects of the process unfold over a week, between days?
Sub-Model #2: What aspects of the process unfold over a day, between hours?
Sub-Model #1: What aspects of the process unfold over an hour, between minutes?
Note. Dashed lines indicate moderating effects.
Coping capacity trait
Lower level (shorter time scales)
Higher Level (longer time scales)
(Relatively) stable aspects Time-varying aspects
The Methodology Center Tech Report No. 15-131 Pragmatic Framework 43
Table 1. Key terms and definitions
Key term DefinitionJust-in-time A concept that captures the effective provision of timely support,
operationalized by offering the type of support needed, precisely when needed, in a way that seeks to minimize waste and accommodate the real-life setting in which support is often needed.
Individualization The use of information from the individual to select when, where and how to intervene.
Adaptation A dynamic form of individualization, whereby time-varying information from the person is used to select intervention options repeatedly over time.
Just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs)
Intervention design aiming to address an individual’s need for support whenever such need arises, by adapting over time to the person’s changing status and circumstances. JITAIs operationalize the individualization of the selection and delivery of intervention options based on ongoing assessments of the individual’s state and ecological context. A JITAI includes 6 key elements: a distal outcome, proximal outcomes, decision points, intervention options, tailoring variables, and decision rules.
Distal outcome Ultimate goal the JITAI is intended to achieve.Proximal outcomes
Mechanisms whereby an intervention can affect the distal outcome. These are the short-term goals the intervention is intended to achieve, and in many cases are mediators of the distal outcome.
Decision points Points in time at which an intervention option is selected based on currently available information.
Tailoring variables
Baseline and time-varying information from the individual that is useful in selecting the type/dose/timing of support at each decision point.
Intervention options
Array of possible type/dose/timing of support that might be employed at any given decision point.
Decision rules A way to operationalize the individualization by specifying which intervention option to offer to whom and when (based on tailoring variables).
Temporal progression
A process capturing the way by which a distal outcome evolves or unfolds over time and the dynamic role key factors play in this process.
Time scale Size of the temporal intervals used to build or test a theory about a process, pattern, phenomenon, or event.
State of vulnerability
The person’s transient tendency to experience adverse health outcomes or to engage in maladaptive behaviors .
State of opportunity
Transient oportunities for learning and improvement
State of receptivity
A restricted time interval in which the person can receive, process, and use the type of support needed