Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29452582›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2018

To what extent can behaviour change techniques be identified within an adaptable implementation package for primary care? A prospective directed content analysis.

Liz Glidewell, Thomas A Willis, Duncan Petty, Rebecca Lawton, Rosemary R C McEachan, Emma Ingleson, Peter Heudtlass, Andrew Davies, Tony Jamieson, Cheryl Hunter and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. General practice responses to opioid prescribing feedback: a qualitative process evaluation.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

18 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Liz GlidewellLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. l.glidewell@leeds.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2519-2654
Thomas A WillisLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Duncan PettyLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Rebecca LawtonSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Rosemary R C McEachanBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, UK.
Emma InglesonLeeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Peter HeudtlassLeeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Andrew DaviesLeeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Tony JamiesonYorkshire and Humber Academic Health Science Network, Wakefield, UK.
Cheryl HunterLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Suzanne HartleyLeeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Kara Gray-BurrowsSchool of Dentistry, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Susan ClampLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Paul CarderWest Yorkshire Research and Development, Bradford Districts Clinical Commissioning Group, Bradford, UK.
Sarah AldersonLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Amanda J FarrinLeeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Robbie FoyLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
ASPIRE programme team
University of Leeds · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-1209-10040
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInterpreting evaluations of complex interventions can be difficult without sufficient description of key intervention content. We aimed to develop an implementation package for primary care which could be delivered using typically available resources and could be adapted to target determinants of behaviour for each of four quality indicators: diabetes control, blood pressure control, anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation and risky prescribing. We describe the development and prospective verification of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) embedded within the adaptable implementation packages.

methodsWe used an over-lapping multi-staged process. We identified evidence-based, candidate delivery mechanisms-mainly audit and feedback, educational outreach and computerised prompts and reminders. We drew upon interviews with primary care professionals using the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore likely determinants of adherence to quality indicators. We linked determinants to candidate BCTs. With input from stakeholder panels, we prioritised likely determinants and intervention content prior to piloting the implementation packages. Our content analysis assessed the extent to which embedded BCTs could be identified within the packages and compared them across the delivery mechanisms and four quality indicators.

resultsEach implementation package included at least 27 out of 30 potentially applicable BCTs representing 15 of 16 BCT categories. Whilst 23 BCTs were shared across all four implementation packages (e.g. BCTs relating to feedback and comparing behaviour), some BCTs were unique to certain delivery mechanisms (e.g. 'graded tasks' and 'problem solving' for educational outreach). BCTs addressing the determinants 'environmental context' and 'social and professional roles' (e.g. 'restructuring the social and 'physical environment' and 'adding objects to the environment') were indicator specific. We found it challenging to operationalise BCTs targeting 'environmental context', 'social influences' and 'social and professional roles' within our chosen delivery mechanisms.

conclusionWe have demonstrated a transparent process for selecting, operationalising and verifying the BCT content in implementation packages adapted to target four quality indicators in primary care. There was considerable overlap in BCTs identified across the four indicators suggesting core BCTs can be embedded and verified within delivery mechanisms commonly available to primary care. Whilst feedback reports can include a wide range of BCTs, computerised prompts can deliver BCTs at the time of decision making, and educational outreach can allow for flexibility and individual tailoring in delivery.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAnticoagulantsAtrial FibrillationBehavior TherapyBlood PressureDiabetes MellitusGeneral PractitionersHumansInappropriate PrescribingPatient Care PlanningPrimary Health CareAnticoagulantsAudit and feedbackBehaviour change techniquesClinical remindersComputerised promptsDiscriminant content analysisEducational outreachImplementation interventionTheoretical Domains Framework

Identifiers

PMID29452582
PMCPMC5816358
OpenAlexW2788728105

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.