Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice

A systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework

Bibliographic Data

ID23336596
AuthorsSimon French (0000-0002-7061-7706, The Alfred Hospital, corresponding author), Simon D French, Sally Green (0000-0002-9564-9050, The Alfred Hospital), Sally E Green, Deborah O''Connor (0000-0002-6836-122X, The Alfred Hospital), Denise A O’Connor, Joanne E McKenzie (0000-0003-3534-1641, The Alfred Hospital), J Francis (0000-0001-5784-8895, University of Aberdeen), Jill J Francis, Susan Michie (0000-0003-0063-6378, University College London), Rachelle Buchbinder (0000-0002-0597-0933, The Alfred Hospital), Peter Schattner (0000-0002-8168-8294, Monash University), Neil Spike (0000-0002-9694-8642, Monash University), Jeremy M Grimshaw (0000-0001-8015-8243, University of Ottawa)
Year2012
Volume7
Issue1
Pages38-38
Publication date2012-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueImplementation Science (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1748-5908 • E-ISSN: 1748-5908
PublisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1186/1748-5908-7-38
PMID22531013
PMCIDPMC3443064
OpenAlexW2097859515
LanguageEN
Citations received72
References cited33

BACKGROUND: There is little systematic operational guidance about how best to develop complex interventions to reduce the gap between practice and evidence. This article is one in a Series of articles documenting the development and use of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to advance the science of implementation research. METHODS: The intervention was developed considering three main components: theory, evidence, and practical issues. We used a four-step approach, consisting of guiding questions, to direct the choice of the most appropriate components of an implementation intervention: Who needs to do what, differently? Using a theoretical framework, which barriers and enablers need to be addressed? Which intervention components (behaviour change techniques and mode(s) of delivery) could overcome the modifiable barriers and enhance the enablers? And how can behaviour change be measured and understood? RESULTS: A complex implementation intervention was designed that aimed to improve acute low back pain management in primary care. We used the TDF to identify the barriers and enablers to the uptake of evidence into practice and to guide the choice of intervention components. These components were then combined into a cohesive intervention. The intervention was delivered via two facilitated interactive small group workshops. We also produced a DVD to distribute to all participants in the intervention group. We chose outcome measures in order to assess the mediating mechanisms of behaviour change. CONCLUSIONS: We have illustrated a four-step systematic method for developing an intervention designed to change clinical practice based on a theoretical framework. The method of development provides a systematic framework that could be used by others developing complex implementation interventions. While this framework should be iteratively adjusted and refined to suit other contexts and settings, we believe that the four-step process should be maintained as the primary framework to guide researchers through a comprehensive intervention development process.

Behaviour change · Health administration · Health promotion · Health services research · Implementation research · Intervention (counseling) · Intervention mapping · Knowledge management · Management science · Medical education · MEDLINE · Process management · Psychological intervention · Public health · Sociology · Systematic review · Theory of change · Clinical practice guidelines implementation · Computer Science · Engineering · Health Informatics · Health Policy Implementation Science · Health Sciences Research and Education · Medicine · Nursing