Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26082136›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2015

Understanding effects in reviews of implementation interventions using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

Elizabeth A Little, Justin Presseau, Martin P Eccles

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. IMPNPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Elizabeth A LittleInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK. lizzielittle@hotmail.co.uk.
Justin PresseauInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK. justin.presseau@ncl.ac.uk.
Martin P EcclesInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK. martin.eccles@ncl.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBehavioural theory can be used to better understand the effects of behaviour change interventions targeting healthcare professional behaviour to improve quality of care. However, the explicit use of theory is rarely reported despite interventions inevitably involving at least an implicit idea of what factors to target to implement change. There is a quality of care gap in the post-fracture investigation (bone mineral density (BMD) scanning) and management (bisphosphonate prescription) of patients at risk of osteoporosis. We aimed to use the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) within a systematic review of interventions to improve quality of care in post-fracture investigation. Our objectives were to explore which theoretical factors the interventions in the review may have been targeting and how this might be related to the size of the effect on rates of BMD scanning and osteoporosis treatment with bisphosphonate medication.

methodsA behavioural scientist and a clinician independently coded TDF domains in intervention and control groups. Quantitative analyses explored the relationship between intervention effect size and total number of domains targeted, and as number of different domains targeted.

resultsNine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (10 interventions) were analysed. The five theoretical domains most frequently coded as being targeted by the interventions in the review included "memory, attention and decision processes", "knowledge", "environmental context and resources", "social influences" and "beliefs about consequences". Each intervention targeted a combination of at least four of these five domains. Analyses identified an inverse relationship between both number of times and number of different domains coded and the effect size for BMD scanning but not for bisphosphonate prescription, suggesting that the more domains the intervention targeted, the lower the observed effect size.

conclusionsWhen explicit use of theory to inform interventions is absent, it is possible to retrospectively identify the likely targeted factors using theoretical frameworks such as the TDF. In osteoporosis management, this suggested that several likely determinants of healthcare professional behaviour appear not yet to have been considered in implementation interventions. This approach may serve as a useful basis for using theory-based frameworks such as the TDF to retrospectively identify targeted factors within systematic reviews of implementation interventions in other implementation contexts.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalBone DensityBone Density Conservation AgentsFractures, BoneHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelHumansMemoryPrimary Health CareQuality of Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReview Literature as TopicBone Density Conservation Agents

Identifiers

PMID26082136
PMCPMC4469259

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.