Improving retrospective intervention descriptions: Lessons learned from research on type 2 diabetes programmes in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland

被引:0
作者
Carvalho, Marcia [1 ,5 ]
Hawkes, Rhiannon E. [2 ]
Hadjiconstantinou, Michelle [3 ,4 ]
Byrne, Molly [1 ]
French, David P. [2 ]
Mcsharry, Jenny [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Galway, Sch Psychol, Hlth Behav Change Res Grp, Galway, Ireland
[2] Univ Manchester, Fac Biol Med & Hlth, Manchester Ctr Hlth Psychol, Div Psychol & Mental Hlth,Sch Hlth Sci, Manchester, England
[3] Univ Leicester, Coll Life Sci, Diabet Res Ctr, Leicester, England
[4] Univ Leicester, Biomed Res Ctr, Leicester, England
[5] Univ Galway, Sch Psychol, Room G055,Arts Millennium Bldg Extens,Univ Rd, Galway, Ireland
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
behavioural interventions; type; 2; diabetes; intervention content; taxonomy; techniques; BEHAVIOR-CHANGE TECHNIQUES; SELF-MANAGEMENT; TAXONOMY; FIDELITY;
D O I
10.1093/tbm/ibae033
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
In recent years, multiple countries worldwide have implemented behavioural interventions within national healthcare systems. Describing the content of these interventions is critical to improve their implementation, replication, and effectiveness, as well as to advance behavioural science. Tools, such as the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy, can enhance the quality of intervention description and reporting. As interventions are frequently developed without the use of such tools, retrospective coding of existing interventions to accurately characterise their content is becoming more common. However, the use of these tools for retrospective coding poses various challenges, the discussion of which has been neglected to date. This commentary discusses the challenges encountered when retrospectively describing the content of five nationally implemented programmes for type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and suggests recommendations to tackle these challenges. We present important methodological, practical, and ethical considerations for researchers to reflect on, relevant to the retrospective description of existing interventions. Specifically, we discuss (i) the importance of positive relationships and collaboration with intervention stakeholders, (ii) the practical and ethical considerations when analysing the content of implemented interventions, (iii) the independence of research teams and the potential for misclassification of intervention content, and (iv) the challenges associated with the analysis of intervention content using behavioural science tools. There is a growing demand for more robust approaches to address the methodological, practical, and ethical challenges associated with such studies. The present commentary describes key issues to be considered by research teams, as well as concrete recommendations to improve the retrospective characterisation of intervention content. Lay Summary In this commentary, we discuss how researchers can best describe the content of existing behavioural interventions. We talk about the challenges we faced when analysing behavioural interventions for type 2 diabetes prevention and management in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Specifically, we reflect on the importance of building good relationships and collaborating with those responsible for developing and/or delivering the interventions, important practical and ethical considerations, dealing with research team independence, and using behavioural science tools to guide the analysis of intervention content. We also share what we have learned from these experiences and some ideas on how to tackle these challenges. Our experiences and lessons can offer valuable insights for future analyses of existing interventions.
引用
收藏
页码:479 / 490
页数:12
相关论文
共 57 条
[1]  
Afif Z., 2019, Behavioral science around the world: Profiles of 10 countries (English)
[2]   Reach and Use of Diabetes Prevention Services in the United States, 2016-2017 [J].
Ali, Mohammed K. ;
Bullard, Kai McKeever ;
Imperatore, Giuseppina ;
Benoit, Stephen R. ;
Rolka, Deborah B. ;
Albright, Ann L. ;
Gregg, Edward W. .
JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2019, 2 (05)
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2017, EVALUATING NHS DIABE
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2008, J Diabetes Nurs
[5]   Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behavior change studies: Best practices and recommendations from the NIH behavior change consortium [J].
Bellg, AJ ;
Borrelli, B ;
Resnick, B ;
Hecht, J ;
Minicucci, DS ;
Ory, M ;
Ogedegbe, G ;
Orwig, D ;
Ernst, D ;
Czajkowski, S .
HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY, 2004, 23 (05) :443-451
[6]   Changes in a Digital Type 2 Diabetes Self-management Intervention During National Rollout: Mixed Methods Study of Fidelity [J].
Benton, Jack S. ;
Cotterill, Sarah ;
Hawkes, Rhiannon E. ;
Miles, Lisa M. ;
French, David P. .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, 2022, 24 (12)
[7]   Mapping behavior change techniques to characterize a social cognitive theory informed physical activity intervention for adults at risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus [J].
Bourne, Jessica E. ;
Ivanova, Elena ;
Gainforth, Heather L. ;
Jung, Mary E. .
TRANSLATIONAL BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE, 2020, 10 (03) :705-712
[8]   Diabetes prevention at scale: Narrative review of findings and lessons from the DIPLOMA evaluation of the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme in England [J].
Bower, Peter ;
Soiland-Reyes, Claudia ;
Heller, Simon ;
Wilson, Paul ;
Cotterill, Sarah ;
French, David ;
Sutton, Matt .
DIABETIC MEDICINE, 2023, 40 (11)
[9]   Management and Prevention Strategies for Non-communicable Diseases (NCDs) and Their Risk Factors [J].
Budreviciute, Aida ;
Damiati, Samar ;
Sabir, Dana Khdr ;
Onder, Kamil ;
Schuller-Goetzburg, Peter ;
Plakys, Gediminas ;
Katileviciute, Agne ;
Khoja, Samir ;
Kodzius, Rimantas .
FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH, 2020, 8
[10]   Gaps and priorities in advancing methods for health behaviour change research [J].
Byrne, Molly .
HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW, 2020, 14 (01) :165-175