Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33073243›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2020

Aligning intuition and theory: enhancing the replicability of behaviour change interventions in cancer genetics.

Natalie Taylor, Emma Healey, April Morrow, Sian Greening, Claire E Wakefield, Linda Warwick, Rachel Williams, Katherine M Tucker

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Patient outcomes and clinician perspectives following one year ofTranslational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Natalie TaylorCancer Research Division, Cancer Council New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2011 Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0280-0883
Emma HealeyPrince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Randwick, New South Wales 2031 Australia.
April MorrowCancer Research Division, Cancer Council New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2011 Australia.
Sian GreeningIllawarra Cancer Care Centre, Wollongong Hospital, Wollongong, New South Wales 2500 Australia.
Claire E WakefieldKids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales 2031 Australia.
Linda WarwickACT Genetic Service, The Canberra Hospital, Woden, Australian Capital Territory 2606 Australia.
Rachel WilliamsPrince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Randwick, New South Wales 2031 Australia.
Katherine M TuckerPrince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Randwick, New South Wales 2031 Australia.
UNSW Sydney · AUThe University of Sydney · AUWollongong Hospital · AUCanberra Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite considerable encouragement for healthcare professionals to use or be clear about the theory used in their improvement programmes, the uptake of these approaches to design interventions or report their content is lacking. Recommendations suggest healthcare practitioners work with social and/or behavioural scientists to gain expertise in programme theory, ideally before, but even during or after the work is done. We aim to demonstrate the extent to which intuitive intervention strategies designed by healthcare professionals to overcome patient barriers to communicating genetic cancer risk information to family members align with a theoretical framework of behaviour change.

methodsAs part of a pre-post intervention study, a team of genetic counsellors aimed to understand, and design interventions to overcome, the major barriers a group of familial cancer patients face around communicating hereditary cancer risk information to their relatives. A behavioural change specialist worked with the team to review and recode barriers and interventions according to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and 93 behaviour change techniques (BCTs). Resulting BCTs were cross-referenced against the Theory and Techniques Tool to examine whether evidence-based mechanistic links have been established to date.

resultsFive themes emerged from the genetic counsellor coded barriers, which when recoded according to the TDF represented seven domains of behaviour change. Forty-five experiential and intuitive interventions were used to tackle key barriers. These were represented by 21 BCTs, which were found to be used on 131 occasions. The full mapping exercise is presented, resulting in a suite of intervention strategies explicitly linked to a theoretical framework. Structured, written reflections were provided retrospectively by the core clinical team.

conclusionsAlthough the ideal is to use theory prospectively, or even whilst a project is underway, making links between theory and interventions explicit, even retrospectively, can contribute towards standardising intervention strategies, furthering understanding of intervention effects, and enhancing the opportunities for accurate replicability and generalisability across other settings. Demonstrating to healthcare professionals how their intuition aligns with theory may highlight the additional benefits that theory has to offer and serve to promote its use in improvement.

Indexed as

Behaviour change techniquesCommunicationHealthcare quality improvementImplementation scienceQuality improvement methodologies

Identifiers

PMID33073243
PMCPMC7557091
OpenAlexW3093134144

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.