Search

Background CONSORT guidelines call for precise reporting of behavior change interventions: we need rigorous methods of characterizing active content of interventions with precision and specificity. Objectives The objective of this study is to develop an extensive, consensually agreed hierarchically structured taxonomy of techniques [behavior change techniques (BCTs)] used in behavior change interventions. Methods In a Delphi-type exercise, 14 experts rated labels and definitions of 124 BCTs from six published classification systems. Another 18 experts grouped BCTs according to similarity of active ingredients in an open-sort task. Inter-rater agreement amongst six researchers coding 85 intervention descriptions by BCTs was assessed. Results This resulted in 93 BCTs clustered into 16 groups. Of the 26 BCTs occurring at least five times, 23 had adjusted kappas of 0.60 or above. Conclusions “BCT taxonomy v1,” an extensive taxonomy of 93 consensually agreed, distinct BCTs, offers a step change as a method for specifying interventions, but we anticipate further development and evaluation based on international, interdisciplinary consensus.

Developing more effective behavioural interventions requires an understanding of the mechanisms of behaviour change, and methods to rigorously test their theoretical basis. The delivery and theoretical basis of an intervention protocol were assessed in ProActive, a UK trial of an intervention to increase the physical activity of those at risk of Type 2 diabetes (N = 365). In 108 intervention sessions, behaviours of facilitators were mapped to four theories that informed intervention development and behaviours of participants were mapped to 17 theoretical components of these four theories. The theory base of the intervention specified by the protocol was different than that delivered by facilitators, and that received by participants. Of the intervention techniques delivered, 25% were associated with theory of planned behaviour (TPB), 42% with self-regulation theory (SRT), 24% with operant learning theory (OLT) and 9% with relapse prevention theory (RPT). The theoretical classification of participant talk showed a different pattern, with twice the proportion associated with OLT (48%), 21% associated with TPB, 31% with SRT and no talk associated with RPT. This study demonstrates one approach to assessing the extent to which the theories used to guide intervention development account for any changes observed.

Background Declining physical activity is associated with a rising burden of global disease. Efforts to reverse this trend have not been successful. We aimed to assess the efficacy of a facilitated behavioural intervention to increase the physical activity of sedentary individuals at familial risk of diabetes. Methods We enrolled 365 sedentary adults who had a parental history of type 2 diabetes. They were recruited from either diabetes or family history registers at 20 general practice clinics in the UK. Eligible participants were randomly assigned to one of two intervention groups, or to a comparison group. All participants were posted a brief advice leaflet. One intervention group was offered a 1-year behaviour-change programme, to be delivered by trained facilitators in participants' homes, and the other the same programme by telephone. The programme was designed to alter behavioural determinants, as defined by the theory of planned behaviour, and to teach behaviour-change strategies. The principal outcome at 1 year was daytime physical activity, which was objectively measured as a ratio to resting energy expenditure. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as ISRCTN61323766. Findings Of 365 patients, we analysed primary endpoints for 321 (88%) for whom we had data after 1 year of follow-up. At 1 year, the physical-activity ratio of participants who received the intervention, by either delivery route, did not differ from the ratio in those who were given a brief advice leaflet. The mean difference in daytime physical-activity ratio, adjusted for baseline, was −0·04 (95% CI −0·16 to 0·08). The physical-activity ratio did not differ between participants who were delivered the intervention face-to-face or by telephone (mean difference −0·05; 95% CI −0·19 to 0·10). Interpretation A facilitated theory-based behavioural intervention was no more effective than an advice leaflet for promotion of physical activity in an at-risk group; therefore healt

Assessing fidelity of behavioural interventions is important, but demanding and rarely done. This study assessed adherence to behaviour change techniques used in an intervention to increase physical activity among sedentary adults ( ProActive ; N = 365). Transcripts of 108 sessions with a sub-sample of 27 participants were assessed. An independent assessor coded adherence of four ‘facilitators’ who delivered the intervention to 208 protocol-specified facilitator behaviours (e.g. ‘elicit perceived advantages of becoming more active’) in four key sessions. Four raters classified the 208 behaviours under 14 techniques (e.g., goal setting, use of rewards) to enable calculation of adherence to techniques. Observed adherence to techniques across participants was modest (median 44%, IQR 35–62%), and lower than that reported by facilitators. Adherence differed between facilitators (range: 26–63%) and decreased across the four sessions (mean drop 9% per session, 95% confidence interval 7–11%). In this small sample facilitator adherence was unrelated to (change in) participants’ physical activity or its cognitive predictors: Attitudes, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control and intention. Future research should investigate causal pathways between fidelity indicators and outcomes in larger samples and develop and test less intensive measures of fidelity.

Assessing fidelity of behavioural interventions is important, but demanding and rarely done. This study assessed adherence to behaviour change techniques used in an intervention to increase physical activity among sedentary adults ( ProActive ; N = 365). Transcripts of 108 sessions with a sub-sample of 27 participants were assessed. An independent assessor coded adherence of four ‘facilitators’ who delivered the intervention to 208 protocol-specified facilitator behaviours (e.g. ‘elicit perceived advantages of becoming more active’) in four key sessions. Four raters classified the 208 behaviours under 14 techniques (e.g., goal setting, use of rewards) to enable calculation of adherence to techniques. Observed adherence to techniques across participants was modest (median 44%, IQR 35–62%), and lower than that reported by facilitators. Adherence differed between facilitators (range: 26–63%) and decreased across the four sessions (mean drop 9% per session, 95% confidence interval 7–11%). In this small sample facilitator adherence was unrelated to (change in) participants’ physical activity or its cognitive predictors: Attitudes, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control and intention. Future research should investigate causal pathways between fidelity indicators and outcomes in larger samples and develop and test less intensive measures of fidelity.

Developing more effective behavioural interventions requires an understanding of the mechanisms of behaviour change, and methods to rigorously test their theoretical basis. The delivery and theoretical basis of an intervention protocol were assessed in ProActive, a UK trial of an intervention to increase the physical activity of those at risk of Type 2 diabetes (N = 365). In 108 intervention sessions, behaviours of facilitators were mapped to four theories that informed intervention development and behaviours of participants were mapped to 17 theoretical components of these four theories. The theory base of the intervention specified by the protocol was different than that delivered by facilitators, and that received by participants. Of the intervention techniques delivered, 25% were associated with theory of planned behaviour (TPB), 42% with self-regulation theory (SRT), 24% with operant learning theory (OLT) and 9% with relapse prevention theory (RPT). The theoretical classification of participant talk showed a different pattern, with twice the proportion associated with OLT (48%), 21% associated with TPB, 31% with SRT and no talk associated with RPT. This study demonstrates one approach to assessing the extent to which the theories used to guide intervention development account for any changes observed.

peer-reviewed, Background: Evaluation of physical activity interventions is vital to inform, and justify, evidence-based policy and practice to support population-wide changes in physical activity. Several evaluation frameworks and guidance documents have been developed to facilitate the evaluation and reporting of evaluation studies in public health. However, there is a lack of evidence about whether frameworks are being used to guide evaluation. There continues to be claims of poor and inconsistent reporting in evaluation studies. The aim of this review was to assess the use of evaluation frameworks and the quality of reporting of how they were applied within evaluation studies of physical activity interventions. Objectives:1. To identify whether evaluation frameworks are reported to have been used within evaluation studies of physical activity interventions, and which frameworks have been used. 2. To appraise the quality of reporting with regards to how evaluation frameworks have been used. Method: We developed a checklist of indicators to enable a critical appraisal of the use and reporting of different evaluation frameworks in evaluation studies. We conducted a systematic search and review of evaluation studies published between 2015 and the date of the search to appraise the use and reporting of evaluation frameworks. A narrative synthesis is provided. Results: The review identified 292 evaluation studies of physical activity interventions, only 69 (23%) of these mentioned using an evaluation framework, and only 16 different frameworks were referred to. There was variation in the quality of reporting of framework use. 51 (74%) studies were identified as being explicitly based on the stated framework, however only 26 (38%) provided detailed descriptions consistently across all the checklist indicators. Details of adaptations and limitations in how frameworks were applied were less frequently reported. The review also highlighted variability in the reporting of intervention co