Exploring the usability of digital behavioral frameworks: Barriers and enablers to applying the Behaviour Change Intervention Ontology and Theories and Techniques Tool in intervention development
Date Submitted: Mar 31, 2026
Open Peer Review Period: Apr 1, 2026 - May 27, 2026
Background: Digital tools are increasingly used to organize, analyze and report behavioral science data, informing interventions addressing health, sustainability and other global challenges. As these tools proliferate, there is a need for methods that evaluate their usability, acceptability and influences on uptake, using theory-informed behavioral approaches. Objective: This study aims to explore: (1) the usability and acceptability of the Theory and Techniques Tool (TaTT; tool for intervention development), alongside the Behaviour Change Intervention Ontology (BCIO; a classification framework for behavior change interventions) online tools, and (2) barriers and enablers to using them to specify behavior change techniques (BCTs) and their delivery, using a behavioral model. Methods: Fourteen intervention development experts participated in a think-aloud task using the TaTT and BCIO’s tools to identify BCTs and intervention delivery in a voter-related intervention development scenario. This was followed by interviews to identify barriers and enablers applying the tools, structured around the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation Behaviour (COM-B) Model. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis, and identified barriers and enablers were mapped to COM-B constructs. Results: We identified four usability and acceptability themes: “Information and presentation clarity” (e.g., unclear condensed information); “Navigational ease within and between tools” (e.g., difficulty moving between pages); and “Poor site performance of BCIO tools” (e.g., site crashes) and “Utility of the tools” (e.g., helpful search functions). Four COM-B constructs were identified as barriers and enablers: Psychological capability (e.g., limited knowledge of ontology structure), Physical opportunity (e.g., lack of real-time guidance), Social opportunity (e.g., mixed views on BCIO acceptance) and Reflective motivation (e.g., perceived value of tool). Conclusions: The findings highlight where TaTT and BCIO tools can be improved and where additional guidance is needed. The study also demonstrates a method for exploring usability that can be applied to other digital tools in behavioral sciences. Clinical Trial: N/A
