The evidence shows that this kind of behaviour change needs to happen collectively, not just individually. So we need joined-up governance at local, national and international levels. Food systems also contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. This can be addressed by reducing waste or directing it back into the supply chain. A mix of different measures will be most effective. The evidence shows that taxation is one of the most effective ways to modify behaviour. Accreditation and labelling schemes can also have an impact.

alternatives to the standard “closed ending“

Ugh Fields' are a really useful concept. The existing write-up isn't targeted at ordinary readers so I'll have a go: Have you ever had an overdue task, a task which isn't so bad in itself, but which you can't bring yourself to think about without feeling awful?

To become a better catalyst for change, Berger suggests to: Find the gaps. Rather than push or persuade someone, highlight a gap between their attitudes and their actions, and then get them to persuade themselves. For example: If someone is reluctant to wear a mask at work, ask them if they would wear one if their child or elderly parent were in the office. Ask why that same care or concern isn't present with their colleagues? Provide a “menu” of choices. Rather than unilaterally force a single solution on others, give people the freedom and autonomy to choose from a few options. This is one way to reduce people’s gut resistance, and again, help them persuade themselves. Cut through perceived risks. If people feel like a new idea is controversial or risky, explain your personal experience as to why you think it is more relatable and less extreme than they think.

“I tried to find the right framework with which to make this big decision... what made this decision really easy was a regret minimization framework... I knew when I was 80, I wasn't going to regret trying this. If I failed, I wouldn't regret that. But I knew the one thing I might regret is not ever having tried.“

Accurate classification of smoking status has long been regarded as an essential prerequisite for advancing tobacco-related epidemiologic, treatment, and policy research. However, the descriptors we commonly use to classify people who smoke may inadvertently perpetuate harmful, stigmatizing beliefs and negative stereotypes. In recognizing the power of words to either perpetuate or reduce stigma, Dr. Nora Volkow—Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse—recently highlighted the role of stigma in addiction,1 and the movement encouraging the use of person-first language and eliminating the use of slang and idioms when describing addiction and the people whom it affects.2,3 In this commentary, we make an appeal for researchers and clinicians to use personfirst language (e.g., “people who smoke”) rather than commonly used labels (e.g., “smokers”) in written (e.g., in scholarly reports) and verbal communication (e.g., clinical case presentations ) to promote greater respect and convey dignity for people who smoke. We assert that the use of precise and bias-free language to describe people who smoke has the potential to reduce smoking-related stigma and may enhance the precision of scientific communication.

Language data There is little information available on the languages crisis-affected people speak and understand. Humanitarians often develop communication strategies without reliable data on literacy, languages spoken, or preferred means of communication. The result too often is that crisis-affected people struggle to communicate with humanitarian organizations in a language they understand. Women, children, older people, and people with disabilities are often at the greatest disadvantage because they are less likely to understand international languages and lingua francas. TWB’s Language Data Initiative addresses those issues and provides important resources for humanitarians. It supports humanitarian organizations to develop language-informed programs and communication strategies. Click on a country on the map below to see language data, resources, and maps that we have available for that country. This map will update as new data is published in the future.

case study of anti-smoking program for kids that backfired

Forward-thinking public health professionals are reaching across sectors to build healthier communities. Recognizing that effective collaboration advances everyone’s mission, Public Health Reaching Across Sectors (PHRASES) supports an “all-hands-on-deck” approach with tools to build communication skills and strategies designed for success.

not really a lit review, but covers key behavior change concepts and how they can be applied to covid

In our work at BehaviourWorks Australia (BWA) we are frequently asked ‘What does the research say about getting audience Y to do behaviour X?’. When our partners need an urgent answer we often provide it using a Rapid Review. In this article I explain Rapid Reviews, why you should do them, and a process that you can follow to conduct one. What is a Rapid Review? Rapid Reviews are “a form of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a timely manner” [1]. Indeed, with sufficient resources (e.g., multiple staff working simultaneously) you can do a Rapid Review in less than a day. The outputs of these reviews are, of course, brief and descriptive, but they can be very useful where rapid evidence is needed, for example, in addressing COVID-19. Rapid Reviews can therefore provide detailed research within reduced timeframes and also meet most academic requirements by being standardised and reproducible. They are often, but not always, publishable in peer-reviewed academic journals.

How to craft the perfect cold email; The power of tiny gains

SessionLab is the dynamic way to design your workshop and collaborate with your co-facilitators The most intuitive session planning system for facilitators, consultants and trainers. Design facilitation plans collaboratively, share professional-looking agendas with your clients and have a shared knowledge base within your team.

great remote icebreaker ideas!

The Patient Activation Measure is a valid, highly reliable, unidimensional, probabilistic Guttman‐like scale that reflects a developmental model of activation. Activation appears to involve four stages: (1) believing the patient role is important, (2) having the confidence and knowledge necessary to take action, (3) actually taking action to maintain and improve one's health, and (4) staying the course even under stress. The measure has good psychometric properties indicating that it can be used at the individual patient level to tailor intervention and assess changes. (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00269.x)

5Es of Experience Design: ENTICE, ENTER, ENGAGE, EXIT, EXTEND When you design a meeting as an experience, keep the 5Es framework as 5 “phases” of the experience in mind. Ask yourself: How might I entice people to join the meeting, how to get them to enter the conversation, how best to engage the participants, how to exit on the right note and how to extend the action to maintain momentum. I’ll guide you through these five phases with tools and case studies, so you can apply them at your work.