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; SuDDICU study groups

doi:10.1111/bjhp.12066

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, SuDDICU study groups

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

13 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 language	English
Pages (from-to)	274-291
Number of pages	18
Journal	British Journal of Health Psychology
Volume	19
Issue number	2
Early online date	23 Sept 2013
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12066
Publication status	Published - May 2014

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

10.1111/bjhp.12066

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., & 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

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 & 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

@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 {SuDDICU study groups}",

note = "{\textcopyright} 2013 The British Psychological Society.",

year = "2014",

month = may,

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 - SuDDICU study groups

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

C2 - 24112280

SN - 1359-107X

VL - 19

SP - 274

EP - 291

JO - British Journal of Health Psychology

JF - British Journal of Health Psychology

IS - 2

ER -

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

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this