I am a passionate researcher in the field of behaviour and decision making, specialising in informed decision making, behaviour change, and the influence of digital communication and interventions. My focus spans a variety of topics, ranging from sexual and reproductive health to the disclosure of mental health issues and climate change. In essence, anything related to behaviour and decision making, as well as its support, captures my interest. Additionally, I am a strong advocate for social justice, aiming to ensure that everyone is visible in research. I actively work to integrate these principles into our research to promote an inclusive approach. In addition, I am an experienced teacher. From being a tutor to coordinating courses, I’ve helped students develop skills that go beyond the classroom.
Before I started working as a researcher, I worked as a paediatric nurse in Germany.
I am also currently the chair of the Digital Health & Computer-Tailoring Special Interest Group (SIG)👨💻 of the European Health Psychology Society (EHPS) and editor-in-chief of the European Health Psychologist 📰
PhD in Health Promotion, 2022
Master of Science in Health Education and Promotion, 2017
Bachelor of Science in Nursing, 2014
Catholic University of Applied Sciences of North Rhine-Westphalia
Currently I am co-examiner of a course focused on qualitative research and review reports within other method-focused courses. I also have (among other things) teaching experience in:
In 2021, I obtained my Basiskwalificatie Onderwijs (BKO) / Dutch University Teaching Qualification (UTQ).
(Pre)registrations may be useful to make psychological research both more diverse and more inclusive. However, to our knowledge there was no (pre)registration form available until now that focused on diversity and inclusivity, so we took the opportunity to develop one during a set of pre-conference workshops at the European Health Psychology Society (EHPS) conference held in 2022 in Bratislava (Slovakia). This article describes the development and introduces the ‘Inclusivity & Diversity Add-On for Preregistration Forms.’
Mental health disclosure decisions can be difficult, especially within universities. University students and staff might benefit from decision support. Therefore, semi-structured interviews were conducted with staff (n=10) and students (n=10), including participants who decided to (not) disclose. The participants were asked to complete a questionnaire including the SURE test. Subsequently, they were interviewed about the decision to disclose and their needs regarding a disclosure decision aid. Data from the SURE test was analyzed based on descriptives, interviews were analyzed using the Framework–method. Most students (n=9) decided not to disclose, whereas most staff (n=8) did. Both students and staff described advantages and disadvantages of disclosing. Advantages included support, relief, understanding, and safety, but there were also risks, such as stigmatization and career concerns. Not disclosing can prevent unwanted questions but can also lead to misunderstandings. In short, disclosing offers opportunities and risks. Regarding decision support, both students and staff preferred a brief online tool. Both students and staff encounter challenges when it comes to deciding whether to disclose their mental health status. A decision aid can serve as a valuable tool to assist them in making informed decisions and preparing for potential conversations related to mental health disclosure.
As research highlights the impact that climate change has on individual and planetary health, people might consider whether and how to reduce their ecological footprint, e.g., by engaging in pro-environmental behaviours (PEBs). However, the decision to engage in these behaviours might depend on how far along they are in the process of deciding to act pro-environmentally (i.e., different stages of decision making) and on their experienced difficulty in deciding in favour of the environment and which behaviour to conduct, (i.e., decisional conflict). To explore in which stage participants find themselves when it comes to environmental decisions and if their respective stages are associated with their experienced decisional conflict, an online questionnaire was distributed among a convenience sample of 418 English-, Dutch-, and Italian-speaking adults to measure determinants of PEBs, participants’ stages, and the extent to which they experience decisional conflict. We observed that participants who were further along in the stages experienced less decisional conflict. Therefore, we suggest that future interventions (e.g., decision aids) should take into account stages of decision making to better meet users’ needs, this can assist people in making environmentally friendly decisions.
Currently, we cannot confidently recommend the inclusion of explicit value clarification methods and computer-tailored advice within digital decision aids. However, they might result in higher nonuse attrition rates, thereby limiting their potential. As a lack of statistical power may have influenced the outcomes, we recommend replicating this study with some adaptations based on the lessons learned.
People make numerous health-related choices each day: For example, deciding to brush one’s teeth or to eat well and healthy – or not to do these activities. To support complex decisions and subsequent behaviour change, both Behaviour Change Interventions (BCIs) and Patient Decision Aids (PtDAs) have been developed and evolved independently to support people in health-related decision making. In this paper, we critically review BCIs and PtDAs, examine their similarities and differences, and identify potential for integration of expertise to increase the benefits for people engaging with healthcare and health behaviours.
The majority of sampled posts showed high levels of muscularity and leanness. In addition, posts depicting men adhering to this specific body type received significantly more responses (likes and comments). Norms and outcomes related to health (i.e., training to be healthy) were more commonly shown than appearance-related constructs (i.e., training to become attractive), and promotion of physical activity was more common than dietary behavior. However, findings are potential harmful to men’s body image, even if one considers that health-related messaging and physical active promotion was prominent. It remains debatable if men need to view very lean and very muscular men to encourage health-related behaviors.