Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: a systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework

Simon D French, Sally E Green, Denise A O'Connor, Joanne E McKenzie, Jillian Joy Francis, Susan Michie, Rachelle Buchbinder, Peter Schattner, Neil Spike, Jeremy M Grimshaw

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

420 Citations (Scopus)
4 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

ABSTRACT: 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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)38
JournalImplementation Science
Volume7
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Fingerprint

Pain Management
Low Back Pain
Primary Health Care
Research Personnel
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Education
Research
Professional Practice Gaps

Cite this

Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice : a systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework. / French, Simon D; Green, Sally E; O'Connor, Denise A; McKenzie, Joanne E; Francis, Jillian Joy; Michie, Susan; Buchbinder, Rachelle; Schattner, Peter; Spike, Neil; Grimshaw, Jeremy M.

In: Implementation Science, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2012, p. 38.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

French, SD, Green, SE, O'Connor, DA, McKenzie, JE, Francis, JJ, Michie, S, Buchbinder, R, Schattner, P, Spike, N & Grimshaw, JM 2012, 'Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: a systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework', Implementation Science, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-38
French, Simon D ; Green, Sally E ; O'Connor, Denise A ; McKenzie, Joanne E ; Francis, Jillian Joy ; Michie, Susan ; Buchbinder, Rachelle ; Schattner, Peter ; Spike, Neil ; Grimshaw, Jeremy M. / Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice : a systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework. In: Implementation Science. 2012 ; Vol. 7, No. 1. pp. 38.
@article{373b240e98954a708cf8c9ae63331ae5,
title = "Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: a systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework",
abstract = "ABSTRACT: 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.",
author = "French, {Simon D} and Green, {Sally E} and O'Connor, {Denise A} and McKenzie, {Joanne E} and Francis, {Jillian Joy} and Susan Michie and Rachelle Buchbinder and Peter Schattner and Neil Spike and Grimshaw, {Jeremy M}",
note = "PMID: 22531013 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] PMCID: PMC3443064 Free PMC Article",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1186/1748-5908-7-38",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "38",
journal = "Implementation Science",
issn = "1748-5908",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice

T2 - a systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework

AU - French, Simon D

AU - Green, Sally E

AU - O'Connor, Denise A

AU - McKenzie, Joanne E

AU - Francis, Jillian Joy

AU - Michie, Susan

AU - Buchbinder, Rachelle

AU - Schattner, Peter

AU - Spike, Neil

AU - Grimshaw, Jeremy M

N1 - PMID: 22531013 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] PMCID: PMC3443064 Free PMC Article

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - ABSTRACT: 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.

AB - ABSTRACT: 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.

U2 - 10.1186/1748-5908-7-38

DO - 10.1186/1748-5908-7-38

M3 - Article

C2 - 22531013

VL - 7

SP - 38

JO - Implementation Science

JF - Implementation Science

SN - 1748-5908

IS - 1

ER -