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
Review
. 2019 Mar 12:5:41.
doi: 10.1186/s40814-019-0425-6. eCollection 2019.

Taxonomy of approaches to developing interventions to improve health: a systematic methods overview

Alicia O'Cathain  1 , Liz Croot  1 , Katie Sworn  1 , Edward Duncan  2 , Nikki Rousseau  2 , Katrina Turner  3 , Lucy Yardley  3 , Pat Hoddinott  2
Affiliations
Review

Taxonomy of approaches to developing interventions to improve health: a systematic methods overview

Alicia O'Cathain et al. Pilot Feasibility Stud. .

Abstract

Background: Interventions need to be developed prior to the feasibility and piloting phase of a study. There are a variety of published approaches to developing interventions, programmes or innovations to improve health. Identifying different types of approach, and synthesising the range of actions taken within this endeavour, can inform future intervention development.

Methods: This study is a systematic methods overview of approaches to intervention development. Approaches were considered for inclusion if they described how to develop or adapt an intervention in a book, website or journal article published after 2007, or were cited in a primary research study reporting the development of a specific intervention published in 2015 or 2016. Approaches were read, a taxonomy of approaches was developed and the range of actions taken across different approaches were synthesised.

Results: Eight categories of approach to intervention development were identified. (1) Partnership, where people who will use the intervention participate equally with the research team in decision-making about the intervention throughout the development process. (2) Target population-centred, where the intervention is based on the views and actions of the people who will use it. (3) Evidence and theory-based, where the intervention is based on published research evidence and existing theories. (4) Implementation-based, where the intervention is developed with attention to ensuring it will be used in the real world. (5) Efficiency-based, where components of an intervention are tested using experimental designs to select components which will optimise efficiency. (6) Stepped or phased, where interventions are developed with an emphasis on following a systematic set of processes. (7) Intervention-specific, where an approach is constructed for a specific type of intervention. (8) Combination, where existing approaches to intervention development are formally combined. The actions from approaches in all eight categories were synthesised to identify 18 actions to consider when developing interventions.

Conclusions: This overview of approaches to intervention development can help researchers to understand the variety of existing approaches, and to understand the range of possible actions involved in intervention development, prior to assessing feasibility or piloting the intervention. Findings from this overview will contribute to future guidance on intervention development.

Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42017080553.

Keywords: Guidance; Health; Intervention development; Methodology; Review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have experience of intervention development. PH and LY have written about approaches to intervention development. PH, LY, LC and ED have developed or adapted interventions. AOC and KT have been co-applicants on studies where others have developed or adapted interventions.Not applicable because it is a review of research methods.Not applicable.Two authors of this article have produced approaches to intervention development included in this overview (PH and LY).Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA 2009 flow diagram: search for primary studies only
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I, Ioannidis JP, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):101–104. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62329-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hawe P. Lessons from complex interventions to improve health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2015;18(36):307–323. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031912-114421. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Colquhoun HL, Squires JE, Kolehmainen N, Fraser C, Grimshaw JM. Methods for designing interventions to change healthcare professionals' behaviour: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):30. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Levati S, Campbell P, Frost R, Dougall N, Wells M, Donaldson C, et al. Optimisation of complex health interventions prior to a randomised controlled trial: a scoping review of strategies used. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016;2:17. doi: 10.1186/s40814-016-0058-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Redfern J, McKevitt C, Wolfe CDA. Development of complex interventions in stroke care: a systematic review. Stroke. 2006;37(9):2410–2419. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000237097.00342.a9. - DOI - PubMed