Search

The Kenyan Ministry of Health (MOH) and a consortium of nutritionists, researchers and communication, and design specialists developed a novel approach to create an evidence‐based recipe book promoting complementary feeding (CF) in Kenya. The ADAPT approach includes five steps: applied research (A), dialogue with stakeholders (D), adapted behaviour change communication (BCC) theories (A), purpose‐driven visual communication (P), and tailoring to priority audiences (T). Through this approach, the recipe book addresses key knowledge gaps using behaviour change theories and visual communication best practice to increase accessibility, acceptability, retention and motivation for behaviour change. The book addresses barriers to CF identified through formative applied research. Dialogue with stakeholders helped ensure cultural appropriateness and the book's alignment with MOH recommendations and key messages. The book uses behaviour change theories to approach the reader in a respectful way that motivates behaviour change. The use of consistent, purpose‐driven visuals helps ensure key messages are easily understood and accessible to all caregivers regardless of literacy level. The book's tone and content are tailored to its audiences’ attributes, needs and preferences. This five‐step process inspired the development of ADAPT, a novel approach that integrates behaviour change and visual communication for greater impact. This paper outlines how the consortium used the ADAPT approach to develop an evidence‐based book that thoughtfully and holistically addresses a wide range of barriers, provides practical solutions and increases self‐efficacy around CF. It offers a blueprint for public health practitioners from any field who are interested in using visual behaviour change communication to promote healthy behaviour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When a patient's treatment decisions are the product of delusion, this is often taken as a paradigmatic case of undermined decisional capacity. That is to say, when a patient refuses treatment on the basis of beliefs that in no way reflect reality, clinicians and ethicists tend to agree that their refusal is not valid. During the COVID‐19 pandemic, however, we have witnessed many patients refuse potentially life‐saving interventions not based on delusion but on conspiracy beliefs. Importantly, many of the beliefs espoused by conspiracy theorists resemble delusions in a number of relevant ways. For instance, conspiracy beliefs often posit states of affairs that could not possibly exist in the world, they are recalcitrant in the face of disconfirming evidence, and they tend to put the believer in a state of paranoia. Given these similarities, how should we think about conspiracy theorists' capacity for making clinical decisions? In this paper, I attempt to answer this question by first offering an account of just what makes some set of beliefs count as a conspiracy theory. Second, I attempt to disambiguate conspiracy beliefs from delusions by exploring important conceptual and psychological features of both. Finally, I apply standard criteria for assessing a patient's decision‐making capacity to instances of conspiracy beliefs and argue that, although the picture is muddy, there may be cases in which conspiracy beliefs undermine capacity. I end by exploring the implications that this might have for surrogate decision‐making and addressing potential objections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]