Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Feb 17;13(1):32.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0704-7.

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

Liz Glidewell  1 , Thomas A Willis  2 , Duncan Petty  2 , Rebecca Lawton  3   4 , Rosemary R C McEachan  4 , Emma Ingleson  5 , Peter Heudtlass  5 , Andrew Davies  5 , Tony Jamieson  6 , Cheryl Hunter  2 , Suzanne Hartley  5 , Kara Gray-Burrows  7 , Susan Clamp  2 , Paul Carder  8 , Sarah Alderson  2 , Amanda J Farrin  5 , Robbie Foy  2 ; ASPIRE programme team
Collaborators, Affiliations

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

Liz Glidewell et al. Implement Sci. .

Abstract

Background: Interpreting 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.

Methods: We 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.

Results: Each 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.

Conclusion: We 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.

Keywords: Audit and feedback; Behaviour change techniques; Clinical reminders; Computerised prompts; Discriminant content analysis; Educational outreach; Implementation intervention; Theoretical Domains Framework.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Authors’ information

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The ASPIRE programme was reviewed by the Leeds Central Research Ethics Committee in June 2012 (12/YH/0254) and National Health Service research governance permissions granted by the West Yorkshire Commissioning Support Unit.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Liz Glidewell and Robbie Foy are editors of Implementation Science. All decisions about this manuscript were made by another editor.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Multi-staged approach to develop and content analyse BCT content of implementation package. Multi-staged approach to develop and content analyse an implementation package with embedded BCTs adapted for four quality indicators
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, Maclennan G, Fraser C, Ramsay C, Vale L, Eccles M. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess. 2002;8:1–247. - PubMed
    1. Prasad V, Ioannidis JP. Evidence-based de-implementation for contradicted, unproven, and aspiring healthcare practices. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):1. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Right Care. NHS Atlas of Variation in Healthcare. London: Public Health England; 2015.
    1. Willis TA, West R, Rushforth B, Stokes T, Glidewell L, Carder P, Faulkner S, Foy R. Variations in achievement of evidence-based, high-impact quality indicators in general practice: an observational study. PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0177949. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177949. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Foy R, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Why does primary care need more implementation research? Fam Pract. 2001;18(4):353–355. doi: 10.1093/fampra/18.4.353. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms