Comparison of four methods for assessing the importance of attitudinal beliefs: An international Delphi study in intensive care settings

Jill J Francis, Eilidh M Duncan, Maria E Prior, Graeme Maclennan, Andrea P Marshall, Elisabeth C Wells, Laura Todd, Louise Rose, Marion K Campbell, Fiona Webster, Martin P Eccles, Geoff Bellingan, Ian M Seppelt, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Brian H Cuthbertson, for the SuDDICU study groups

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Behaviour change interventions often target 'important' beliefs. The literature proposes four methods for assessing importance of attitudinal beliefs: elicitation frequency, importance ratings, and strength of prediction (bivariate and multivariate). We tested congruence between these methods in a Delphi study about selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD). SDD improves infection rates among critically ill patients, yet uptake in intensive care units is low internationally.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)274-291
Number of pages18
JournalBritish Journal of Health Psychology
Volume19
Issue number2
Early online date23 Sep 2013
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2014

    Fingerprint

Cite this

Francis, J. J., Duncan, E. M., Prior, M. E., Maclennan, G., Marshall, A. P., Wells, E. C., Todd, L., Rose, L., Campbell, M. K., Webster, F., Eccles, M. P., Bellingan, G., Seppelt, I. M., Grimshaw, J. M., Cuthbertson, B. H., & for the SuDDICU study groups (2014). Comparison of four methods for assessing the importance of attitudinal beliefs: An international Delphi study in intensive care settings. British Journal of Health Psychology, 19(2), 274-291. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12066