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

8 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

Delphi Technique
Decontamination
Critical Care
Gastrointestinal Tract
Critical Illness
Intensive Care Units
Infection

Cite this

Comparison of four methods for assessing the importance of attitudinal beliefs : An international Delphi study in intensive care settings. / Francis, Jill J; Duncan, Eilidh M; Prior, Maria E; Maclennan, Graeme; Marshall, Andrea P; Wells, Elisabeth C; Todd, Laura; Rose, Louise; Campbell, Marion K; Webster, Fiona; Eccles, Martin P; Bellingan, Geoff; Seppelt, Ian M; Grimshaw, Jeremy M; Cuthbertson, Brian H; for the SuDDICU study groups.

In: British Journal of Health Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 2, 05.2014, p. 274-291.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Francis, JJ, Duncan, EM, Prior, ME, Maclennan, G, Marshall, AP, Wells, EC, Todd, L, Rose, L, Campbell, MK, Webster, F, Eccles, MP, Bellingan, G, Seppelt, IM, Grimshaw, JM, Cuthbertson, BH & 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, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 274-291. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12066
Francis, Jill J ; Duncan, Eilidh M ; Prior, Maria E ; Maclennan, Graeme ; Marshall, Andrea P ; Wells, Elisabeth C ; Todd, Laura ; Rose, Louise ; Campbell, Marion K ; Webster, Fiona ; Eccles, Martin P ; Bellingan, Geoff ; Seppelt, Ian M ; Grimshaw, Jeremy M ; Cuthbertson, Brian H ; for the SuDDICU study groups. / Comparison of four methods for assessing the importance of attitudinal beliefs : An international Delphi study in intensive care settings. In: British Journal of Health Psychology. 2014 ; Vol. 19, No. 2. pp. 274-291.
@article{0a0764b254ca4c29b76b72b5ba4bfe70,
title = "Comparison of four methods for assessing the importance of attitudinal beliefs: An international Delphi study in intensive care settings",
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.",
author = "Francis, {Jill J} and Duncan, {Eilidh M} and Prior, {Maria E} and Graeme Maclennan and Marshall, {Andrea P} and Wells, {Elisabeth C} and Laura Todd and Louise Rose and Campbell, {Marion K} and Fiona Webster and Eccles, {Martin P} and Geoff Bellingan and Seppelt, {Ian M} and Grimshaw, {Jeremy M} and Cuthbertson, {Brian H} and {for the SuDDICU study groups}",
note = "{\circledC} 2013 The British Psychological Society.",
year = "2014",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1111/bjhp.12066",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "274--291",
journal = "British Journal of Health Psychology",
issn = "1359-107X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of four methods for assessing the importance of attitudinal beliefs

T2 - An international Delphi study in intensive care settings

AU - Francis, Jill J

AU - Duncan, Eilidh M

AU - Prior, Maria E

AU - Maclennan, Graeme

AU - Marshall, Andrea P

AU - Wells, Elisabeth C

AU - Todd, Laura

AU - Rose, Louise

AU - Campbell, Marion K

AU - Webster, Fiona

AU - Eccles, Martin P

AU - Bellingan, Geoff

AU - Seppelt, Ian M

AU - Grimshaw, Jeremy M

AU - Cuthbertson, Brian H

AU - for the SuDDICU study groups

N1 - © 2013 The British Psychological Society.

PY - 2014/5

Y1 - 2014/5

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.1111/bjhp.12066

DO - 10.1111/bjhp.12066

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 274

EP - 291

JO - British Journal of Health Psychology

JF - British Journal of Health Psychology

SN - 1359-107X

IS - 2

ER -