IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v70y2010i10p1618-1625.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using theory to synthesise evidence from behaviour change interventions: The example of audit and feedback

Author

Listed:
  • Gardner, Benjamin
  • Whittington, Craig
  • McAteer, John
  • Eccles, Martin P.
  • Michie, Susan

Abstract

Evidence syntheses are used to inform health care policy and practice. Behaviour change theories offer frameworks for categorising and evaluating interventions and identifying likely mechanisms through which effects are achieved. Yet systematic reviews rarely explicitly classify intervention components using theory, which may result in evidence syntheses and health care practice recommendations that are less than optimal. This paper outlines a method for applying theory to evidence syntheses of behaviour change interventions. We illustrate this method with an analysis of 'audit and feedback' interventions, based on data from a Cochrane review. Our analysis is based on Control Theory, which suggests that behaviour change is most likely if feedback is accompanied by comparison with a behavioural target and by action plans, and we coded interventions for these three techniques. Multivariate meta-regression was performed on 85 comparisons from 61 studies. However, few interventions incorporated targets or action plans, and so meta-regression models were likely to be underfitted due to insufficient power. The utility of our approach could not be tested via our analysis because of the limited nature of the audit and feedback interventions. However, we show that conceptualising and categorising interventions using behaviour change theory can reveal the theoretical coherence of interventions and so point towards improvements in intervention design, evaluation and synthesis. The results demonstrate that a theory-based approach to evidence synthesis is feasible, and can prove beneficial in understanding intervention design, even where there is insufficient empirical evidence to reliably synthesise effects of specific intervention components.

Suggested Citation

  • Gardner, Benjamin & Whittington, Craig & McAteer, John & Eccles, Martin P. & Michie, Susan, 2010. "Using theory to synthesise evidence from behaviour change interventions: The example of audit and feedback," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(10), pages 1618-1625, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:10:p:1618-1625
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(10)00122-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vaezipour, Atiyeh & Rakotonirainy, Andry & Haworth, Narelle & Delhomme, Patricia, 2018. "A simulator evaluation of in-vehicle human machine interfaces for eco-safe driving," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 696-713.
    2. Christopher Fuller & Susan Michie & Joanne Savage & John McAteer & Sarah Besser & Andre Charlett & Andrew Hayward & Barry D Cookson & Ben S Cooper & Georgia Duckworth & Annette Jeanes & Jenny Roberts , 2012. "The Feedback Intervention Trial (FIT) — Improving Hand-Hygiene Compliance in UK Healthcare Workers: A Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(10), pages 1-10, October.
    3. Johnson, Blair T. & Acabchuk, Rebecca L., 2018. "What are the keys to a longer, happier life? Answers from five decades of health psychology research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 218-226.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:10:p:1618-1625. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.