BACKGROUND
There is a need for physical activity promotion interventions in adolescents and young adults with intellectual disabilities. Current interventions have shown limited effectiveness, which may be attributed to the absence of theory and a population-specific development. Combining a planning model (including theory) and cocreation with the target audience during intervention development could potentially address this gap.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to report the systematic development of the Move it, Move ID! intervention by describing how the 8 different steps of the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW) were applied and present the results that emerged from those steps. In doing so, the (theoretical) content of the intervention is described in detail.
METHODS
A total of 23 adolescents and young adults (aged 14-22 years) with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities were designated as cocreators of the intervention. Across 2 groups, 6 similar cocreation sessions were organized in each. The content and sequence of the sessions were structured to align with the 8 steps of the BCW. All sessions were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Both a deductive (ie, steps of the BCW) and inductive (ie, resonating the voice of the participants) analysis approach were applied specifically focusing on identifying and describing the findings within each of the BCW steps.
RESULTS
After behavioral analysis (steps 1-4), 10 intervention goals were chosen and linked to Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation–Behavior components (theory within the BCW) that needed to be addressed. Psychological capability, social opportunity, and reflective motivation were emphasized as the first targets to focus on. A key finding was the urge for real-life social connectedness and social integration, which makes the social component as part of physical activity a central theme to focus on within intervention development. Judgments on the most suitable intervention functions (step 5) and behavior change techniques (step 7) were explained. When discussing the mode of delivery of the intervention (step 8), it was underscored that solely relying on a mobile health app would not fulfill participants’ social needs. Hence, the chosen intervention adopts a dyadic approach in which young individuals with intellectual disabilities are matched with peers without intellectual disabilities to engage in physical activities together, with a mobile app playing a supportive role in this partnership.
CONCLUSIONS
The transparent description of the development process highlights why certain intervention components and behavior change techniques were chosen and how they are intertwined by means of the selected intervention design. This paper provides a detailed blueprint for practitioners wanting to integrate the BCW and its associated behavior change techniques, in combination with actively involving the target group, into their intervention development for people with intellectual disabilities.
