Paper-based and web-based intervention modeling experiments identified the same predictors of general practitioners' antibiotic-prescribing behavior

A scoping review and behavioural analysis of factors underlying overuse of antimicrobials

Background

Overuse of antimicrobials is a challenging global issue that contributes to antimicrobial resistance. Despite widespread awareness of the problem among members of the medical community and various attempts to improve prescription practices, existing antimicrobial stewardship programmes are not always effective. In our view, this may reflect limited understanding of factors that influence prescription of antimicrobials as empirical therapy, implying a need to address the psychological mechanisms behind some of the specific behaviours involved.

Objectives

To identify factors that influence the antimicrobials prescription as empirical therapy, and to relate these factors to findings from behavioural science.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review of the literature on the factors underlying antimicrobial prescription decisions, following the protocol designed using PRISMA guidelines.

Results and conclusions

From a final sample of 90 sources, we identified ten factors important in antimicrobial prescription decisions. In the second stage of our analysis, we grouped them into five final categories: (1) nature of the decision, (2) social influences, (3) individual differences, (4) characteristics of the patient, (5) context. We analyse these categories using a behavioural science perspective.

How is the Theoretical Domains Framework applied in designing interventions to support healthcare practitioner behaviour change? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The use of theory is recommended to support interventions to promote implementation of evidence-based practices. However, there are multiple models of behaviour change which can be complex and lack comprehensiveness and are therefore difficult to understand and operationalize. The Theoretical Domains Framework sought to address these problems by synthesizing 33 models of behaviour or behaviour change. Given that it is 15 years since the first publication of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), it is timely to reflect on how the framework has been applied in practice.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to identify and narratively synthesize papers in which the TDF, (including frameworks that incorporate the TDF) have been used have been used to develop implementation interventions.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, PsychINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane databases using the terms: 'theoretical domains framework*' or TDF or Capability, Opportunity, Motivation to Behaviour (COM-B) or 'behav* change wheel' or 'BCW' AND implement* or improv* or quality or guideline* or intervention* or practice* or EBP or 'evidence based practice' and conducted citation and key author searches. The included papers were those that used any version of the TDF published from 2005 onwards. The included papers were subject to narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

A total of 3540 papers were identified and 60 were included. Thirty-two papers reported intervention design only and 28 reported intervention design and testing. Despite over 3000 citations there has been limited application to the point of designing interventions to support the best practice. In particular use of the framework has not been tried or tested in non-western countries and barely used in non-primary or acute care settings. Authors have applied the framework to assess barriers and facilitators successfully but reporting of the process of selection of behaviour change techniques and intervention design thereafter was variable.

CONCLUSION

Despite over three thousand citations of the framework there has been limited application to the point of designing interventions to support best practice. The framework is barely used in non-western countries or beyond primary or acute care settings. A stated purpose of the framework was to make psychological theory accessible to researchers and practitioners alike; if this is to be fully achieved, further guidance is needed on the application of the framework beyond the point of assessment of barriers and facilitators.

The use of theory in the development and evaluation of behaviour change interventions to improve antimicrobial prescribing: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review (SR) reviews the evidence on use of theory in developing and evaluating behaviour change interventions (BCIs) to improve clinicians' antimicrobial prescribing (AP).

METHODS

The SR protocol was registered with PROSPERO. Eleven databases were searched from inception to October 2018 for peer-reviewed, English-language, primary literature in any healthcare setting and for any medical condition. This included research on changing behavioural intentions (e.g. in simulated scenarios) and research measuring actual AP. All study designs/methodologies were included. Excluded were: grey literature and/or those which did not state a theory. Two reviewers independently extracted and quality assessed the data. The Theory Coding Scheme (TCS) evaluated the extent of the use of theory.

RESULTS

Searches found 4227 potentially relevant papers after removal of duplicates. Screening of titles/abstracts led to dual assessment of 38 full-text papers. Ten (five quantitative, three qualitative and two mixed-methods) met the inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in the UK (n = 8), Canada (n = 1) and Sweden (n = 1), most in primary care settings (n = 9), targeting respiratory tract infections (n = 8), and medical doctors (n = 10). The most common theories used were Theory of Planned Behaviour (n = 7), Social Cognitive Theory (n = 5) and Operant Learning Theory (n = 5). The use of theory to inform the design and choice of intervention varied, with no optimal use as recommended in the TCS.

CONCLUSIONS

This SR is the first to investigate theoretically based BCIs around AP. Few studies were identified; most were suboptimal in theory use. There is a need to consider how theory is used and reported and the systematic use of the TCS could help.

Developing an evidence-based online method of linking behaviour change techniques and theoretical mechanisms of action: a multiple methods study

Background

Many global health challenges may be targeted by changing people’s behaviour. Behaviours including cigarette smoking, physical inactivity and alcohol misuse, as well as certain dietary behaviours, contribute to deaths and disability by increasing the risk of cancers, cardiovascular diseases and diabetes. Interventions have been designed to change these health behaviours with a view to reducing these health risks. However, the effectiveness of these interventions has been quite variable and further information is needed to enhance their success. More information is needed about the specific processes that underlie the effectiveness of intervention strategies.

Aim

Researchers have developed a taxonomy of 93 behaviour change techniques (i.e. the active components of an intervention that bring about behavioural change), but little is known regarding their potential mechanisms of action (i.e. the processes through which a behaviour change technique affects behaviour). We therefore aimed to examine links between behaviour change techniques and mechanisms of action.

Method

First, we conducted a literature synthesis study of 277 behaviour change intervention studies, from which we extracted information on links, described by authors, between behaviour change techniques and mechanisms of action, and identified an average of 10 links per intervention report. Second, behaviour change experts (n = 105) were engaged in a three-round consensus study in which they discussed and rated their confidence in the presence/absence of ‘links’ and ‘non-links’ between commonly used behaviour change techniques (n = 61) and a set of mechanisms of action (n = 26). Ninety links and 460 ‘non-links’ reached the pre-set threshold of 80% agreement. To enhance the validity of these results, a third study was conducted that triangulated the findings of the first two studies. Discrepancies and uncertainties between the studies were included in a reconciliation consensus study with a new group of experts (n = 25). The final results identified 92 definite behaviour change technique–mechanism of action links and 465 definite non-links. In a fourth study, we examined whether or not groups of behaviour change techniques used together frequently across interventions revealed shared theoretical underpinnings. We found that experts agreed on the underlying theory for three groups of behaviour change techniques.

Results

Our results are potentially useful to policy-makers and practitioners in selecting behaviour change techniques to include in behaviour change interventions. However, our data do not demonstrate that the behaviour change techniques are effective in targeting the mechanism of action; rather, the links identified may be the ‘best bets’ for interventions that are effective in changing mechanisms of action, and the non-links are unlikely to be effective. Researchers examining effectiveness of interventions in either primary studies or evidence syntheses may consider these links for further investigation.

Conclusion

To make our results usable by researchers, practitioners and policy-makers, they are available in an online interactive tool, which enables discussion and collaboration (https://theoryandtechniquetool.humanbehaviourchange.org/); accessed 1 March 2020. This work, building on previous work to develop the behaviour change technique taxonomy, is part of an ongoing programme of work: the Human Behaviour Change Project (www.humanbehaviourchange.org/; accessed 1 March 2020).

Funding

This project was funded by the Medical Research Council via its Methodology Panel: ‘Developing methodology for designing and evaluating theory-based complex interventions: an ontology for linking behaviour change techniques to theory’ (reference MR/L011115/1).

Behavior Change Techniques and Their Mechanisms of Action: A Synthesis of Links Described in Published Intervention Literature

Background

Despite advances in behavioral science, there is no widely shared understanding of the “mechanisms of action” (MoAs) through which individual behavior change techniques (BCTs) have their effects. Cumulative progress in the development, evaluation, and synthesis of behavioral interventions could be improved by identifying the MoAs through which BCTs are believed to bring about change.

Purpose

This study aimed to identify the links between BCTs and MoAs described by authors of a corpus of published literature.

Methods

Hypothesized links between BCTs and MoAs were extracted by two coders from 277 behavior change intervention articles. Binomial tests were conducted to provide an indication of the relative frequency of each link.

Results

Of 77 BCTs coded, 70 were linked to at least one MoA. Of 26 MoAs, all but one were linked to at least one BCT. We identified 2,636 BCT–MoA links in total (mean number of links per article = 9.56, SD = 13.80). The most frequently linked MoAs were “Beliefs about Capabilities” and “Intention.” Binomial test results identified up to five MoAs linked to each of the BCTs (M = 1.71, range: 1–5) and up to eight BCTs for each of the MoAs (M = 3.63, range: 1–8).

Conclusions

The BCT–MoA links described by intervention authors and identified in this extensive review present intervention developers and reviewers with a first level of systematically collated evidence. These findings provide a resource for the development of theory-based interventions, and for theoretical understanding of intervention evaluations. The extent to which these links are empirically supported requires systematic investigation.

A four-stage process for intervention description and guide development of a practice-based intervention: refining the Namaste Care intervention implementation specification for people with advanced dementia prior to a feasibility cluster randomised trial

Background

Some interventions are developed from practice, and implemented before evidence of effect is determined, or the intervention is fully specified. An example is Namaste Care, a multi-component intervention for people with advanced dementia, delivered in care home, community, hospital and hospice settings. This paper describes the development of an intervention description, guide and training package to support implementation of Namaste Care within the context of a feasibility trial. This allows fidelity to be determined within the trial, and for intervention users to understand how similar their implementation is to that which was studied.

Methods

A four-stage approach: a) Collating existing intervention materials and drawing from programme theory developed from a realist review to draft an intervention description. b) Exploring readability, comprehensibility and utility with staff who had not experienced Namaste Care. c) Using modified nominal group techniques with those with Namaste Care experience to refine and prioritise the intervention implementation materials. d) Final refinement with a patient and public involvement panel.

Results

Eighteen nursing care home staff, one carer, one volunteer and five members of our public involvement panel were involved across the study steps. A 16-page A4 booklet was designed, with flow charts, graphics and colour coded information to ease navigation through the document. This was supplemented by infographics, and a training package. The guide describes the boundaries of the intervention and how to implement it, whilst retaining the flexible spirit of the Namaste Care intervention.

Conclusions

There is little attention paid to how best to specify complex interventions that have already been organically implemented in practice. This four-stage process may have utility for context specific adaptation or description of existing, but untested, interventions. A robust, agreed, intervention and implementation description should enable a high-quality future trial. If an effect is determined, flexible practice implementation should be enabled through having a clear, evidence-based guide.

From Theory-Inspired to Theory-Based Interventions: A Protocol for Developing and Testing a Methodology for Linking Behaviour Change Techniques to Theoretical Mechanisms of Action

Background

Understanding links between behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and mechanisms of action (the processes through which they affect behaviour) helps inform the systematic development of behaviour change interventions.

Purpose

This research aims to develop and test a methodology for linking BCTs to their mechanisms of action.

Methods

Study 1 (published explicit links): Hypothesised links between 93 BCTs (from the 93-item BCT taxonomy, BCTTv1) and mechanisms of action will be identified from published interventions and their frequency, explicitness and precision documented. Study 2 (expert-agreed explicit links): Behaviour change experts will identify links between 61 BCTs and 26 mechanisms of action in a formal consensus study. Study 3 (integrated matrix of explicit links): Agreement between studies 1 and 2 will be evaluated and a new group of experts will discuss discrepancies. An integrated matrix of BCT-mechanism of action links, annotated to indicate strength of evidence, will be generated. Study 4 (published implicit links): To determine whether groups of co-occurring BCTs can be linked to theories, we will identify groups of BCTs that are used together from the study 1 literature. A consensus exercise will be used to rate strength of links between groups of BCT and theories.

Conclusions

A formal methodology for linking BCTs to their hypothesised mechanisms of action can contribute to the development and evaluation of behaviour change interventions. This research is a step towards developing a behaviour change 'ontology', specifying relations between BCTs, mechanisms of action, modes of delivery, populations, settings and types of behaviour.

Reducing patient delay in Acute Coronary Syndrome (RAPiD): research protocol for a web-based randomized controlled trial examining the effect of a behaviour change intervention

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy of a behaviour change technique-based intervention and compare two possible modes of delivery (text + visual and text-only) with usual care.

BACKGROUND

Patient delay prevents many people from achieving optimal benefit of time-dependent treatments for acute coronary syndrome. Reducing delay would reduce mortality and morbidity, but interventions to change behaviour have had mixed results. Systematic inclusion of behaviour change techniques or a visual mode of delivery might improve the efficacy of interventions.

DESIGN

A three-arm web-based, parallel randomized controlled trial of a theory-based intervention.

METHODS

The intervention comprises 12 behaviour change techniques systematically identified following systematic review and a consensus exercise undertaken with behaviour change experts. We aim to recruit n = 177 participants who have experienced acute coronary syndrome in the previous 6 months from a National Health Service Hospital. Consenting participants will be randomly allocated in equal numbers to one of three study groups: i) usual care, ii) usual care plus text-only behaviour change technique-based intervention or iii) usual care plus text + visual behaviour change technique-based intervention. The primary outcome will be the change in intention to phone an ambulance immediately with symptoms of acute coronary syndrome ≥15-minute duration, assessed using two randomized series of eight scenarios representing varied symptoms before and after delivery of the interventions or control condition (usual care). Funding granted January 2014.

DISCUSSION

Positive results changing intentions would lead to a randomized controlled trial of the behaviour change intervention in clinical practice, assessing patient delay in the event of actual symptoms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02820103.

Optimisation of complex health interventions prior to a randomised controlled trial: a scoping review of strategies used

BACKGROUND

Many complex intervention trials fail to show an intervention effect. Although this may be due to genuine ineffectiveness, it may also be the result of sub-optimal intervention design, implementation failure or a combination of these. Given current financial constraints and the pressure to reduce waste and increase value in health services research, pre-trial strategies are needed to reduce the likelihood of design or implementation failure and to maximise the intervention's potential for effectiveness. In this scoping review, we aimed to identify and synthesise the available evidence relating to the strategies and methods used to 'optimise' complex interventions at the pre-trial stage.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO and ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source for papers published between January 2000 and March 2015. We included intervention development and optimisation studies that explored potential intervention weaknesses and limitations before moving to a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT). Two reviewers independently applied selection criteria and systematically extracted information relating to the following: study characteristics; intervention under development; framework used to guide the development process; areas of focus of the optimisation process, methods used and outcomes of the optimisation process. Data were tabulated and summarised in a narrative format.

RESULTS

We screened 3968 titles and 231 abstracts for eligibility. Eighty-nine full-text papers were retrieved; 27 studies met our selection criteria. Optimisation strategies were used for a range of reasons: to explore the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention to patients and healthcare professionals; to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different combinations of intervention components; and to identify potential barriers to implementation. Methods varied widely across studies, from interviews and focus groups to economic modelling and probability analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The review identifies a range of optimisation strategies currently used. Although a preliminary classification of these strategies can be proposed, a series of questions remain as to which methods to use for different interventions and how to determine when the intervention is ready or 'optimised enough' to be tested in a RCT. Future research should explore potential answers to the questions raised, to guide researchers in the development and evaluation of more effective interventions.