Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27189585›Full record

ArticleHealth psychology review2016

Celebrating variability and a call to limit systematisation: the example of the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy and the Behaviour Change Wheel.

Jane Ogden

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health psychology review, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jane Ogdena School of Psychology , University of Surrey , Guildford , UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Within any discipline there is always a degree of variability. For medicine it takes the form of Health Professional's behaviour, for education it's the style and content of the classroom, and for health psychology, it can be found in patient's behaviour, the theories used and clinical practice. Over recent years, attempts have been made to reduce this variability through the use of the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy, the COM-B and the Behaviour Change Wheel. This paper argues that although the call for better descriptions of what is done is useful for clarity and replication, this systematisation may be neither feasible nor desirable. In particular, it is suggested that the gaps inherent in the translational process from coding a protocol to behaviour will limit the effectiveness of reducing patient variability, that theory variability is necessary for the health and well-being of a discipline and that practice variability is central to the professional status of our practitioners. It is therefore argued that we should celebrate rather than remove this variability in order for our discipline to thrive and for us to remain as professionals rather than as technicians.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorModels, PsychologicalBehavior TherapyHumansPatientsbehaviour changecritical analysisTheory

Identifiers

PMID27189585

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.