↓ Skip to main content

Do self- reported intentions predict clinicians' behaviour: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, November 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
270 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
217 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Do self- reported intentions predict clinicians' behaviour: a systematic review
Published in
Implementation Science, November 2006
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-1-28
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin P Eccles, Susan Hrisos, Jill Francis, Eileen F Kaner, Heather O Dickinson, Fiona Beyer, Marie Johnston

Abstract

Implementation research is the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of clinical research findings into routine clinical practice. Several interventions have been shown to be effective in changing health care professionals' behaviour, but heterogeneity within interventions, targeted behaviours, and study settings make generalisation difficult. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the 'active ingredients' in professional behaviour change strategies. Theories of human behaviour that feature an individual's "intention" to do something as the most immediate predictor of their behaviour have proved to be useful in non-clinical populations. As clinical practice is a form of human behaviour such theories may offer a basis for developing a scientific rationale for the choice of intervention to use in the implementation of new practice. The aim of this review was to explore the relationship between intention and behaviour in clinicians and how this compares to the intention-behaviour relationship in studies of non-clinicians. We searched: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Science/Social science citation index, Current contents (social & behavioural med/clinical med), ISI conference proceedings, and Index to Theses. The reference lists of all included papers were checked manually. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they had: examined a clinical behaviour within a clinical context, included measures of both intention and behaviour, measured behaviour after intention, and explored this relationship quantitatively. All titles and abstracts retrieved by electronic searching were screened independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved by discussion. Ten studies were found that examined the relationship between intention and clinical behaviours in 1623 health professionals. The proportion of variance in behaviour explained by intention was of a similar magnitude to that found in the literature relating to non-health professionals. This was more consistently the case for studies in which intention-behaviour correspondence was good and behaviour was self-reported. Though firm conclusions are limited by a smaller literature, our findings are consistent with that of the non-health professional literature. This review, viewed in the context of the larger populations of studies, provides encouragement for the contention that there is a predictable relationship between the intentions of a health professional and their subsequent behaviour. However, there remain significant methodological challenges.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 1%
United States 3 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 206 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 19%
Researcher 33 15%
Student > Master 21 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 8%
Other 16 7%
Other 56 26%
Unknown 33 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 25%
Psychology 37 17%
Social Sciences 21 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 5%
Other 27 12%
Unknown 48 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#6,264,777
of 22,731,677 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,095
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,947
of 155,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,731,677 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 155,063 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.