↓ Skip to main content

Methods for designing interventions to change healthcare professionals’ behaviour: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 1,696)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
146 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
423 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Methods for designing interventions to change healthcare professionals’ behaviour: a systematic review
Published in
Implementation Science, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0560-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather L. Colquhoun, Janet E. Squires, Niina Kolehmainen, Cynthia Fraser, Jeremy M. Grimshaw

Abstract

Systematic reviews consistently indicate that interventions to change healthcare professional (HCP) behaviour are haphazardly designed and poorly specified. Clarity about methods for designing and specifying interventions is needed. The objective of this review was to identify published methods for designing interventions to change HCP behaviour. A search of MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO was conducted from 1996 to April 2015. Using inclusion/exclusion criteria, a broad screen of abstracts by one rater was followed by a strict screen of full text for all potentially relevant papers by three raters. An inductive approach was first applied to the included studies to identify commonalities and differences between the descriptions of methods across the papers. Based on this process and knowledge of related literatures, we developed a data extraction framework that included, e.g. level of change (e.g. individual versus organization); context of development; a brief description of the method; tasks included in the method (e.g. barrier identification, component selection, use of theory). 3966 titles and abstracts and 64 full-text papers were screened to yield 15 papers included in the review, each outlining one design method. All of the papers reported methods developed within a specific context. Thirteen papers included barrier identification and 13 included linking barriers to intervention components; although not the same 13 papers. Thirteen papers targeted individual HCPs with only one paper targeting change across individual, organization, and system levels. The use of theory and user engagement were included in 13/15 and 13/15 papers, respectively. There is an agreement across methods of four tasks that need to be completed when designing individual-level interventions: identifying barriers, selecting intervention components, using theory, and engaging end-users. Methods also consist of further additional tasks. Examples of methods for designing the organisation and system-level interventions were limited. Further analysis of design tasks could facilitate the development of detailed guidelines for designing interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 232 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 423 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 421 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 74 17%
Researcher 71 17%
Student > Master 53 13%
Other 35 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 6%
Other 93 22%
Unknown 73 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 102 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 79 19%
Psychology 42 10%
Social Sciences 35 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 12 3%
Other 54 13%
Unknown 99 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 136. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 July 2022.
All research outputs
#239,965
of 22,040,807 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#13
of 1,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,748
of 277,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,040,807 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,696 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,983 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them