↓ Skip to main content

A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#7 of 1,823)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
302 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
1922 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2662 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
A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems
Published in
Implementation Science, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0605-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lou Atkins, Jill Francis, Rafat Islam, Denise O’Connor, Andrea Patey, Noah Ivers, Robbie Foy, Eilidh M. Duncan, Heather Colquhoun, Jeremy M. Grimshaw, Rebecca Lawton, Susan Michie

Abstract

Implementing new practices requires changes in the behaviour of relevant actors, and this is facilitated by understanding of the determinants of current and desired behaviours. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was developed by a collaboration of behavioural scientists and implementation researchers who identified theories relevant to implementation and grouped constructs from these theories into domains. The collaboration aimed to provide a comprehensive, theory-informed approach to identify determinants of behaviour. The first version was published in 2005, and a subsequent version following a validation exercise was published in 2012. This guide offers practical guidance for those who wish to apply the TDF to assess implementation problems and support intervention design. It presents a brief rationale for using a theoretical approach to investigate and address implementation problems, summarises the TDF and its development, and describes how to apply the TDF to achieve implementation objectives. Examples from the implementation research literature are presented to illustrate relevant methods and practical considerations. Researchers from Canada, the UK and Australia attended a 3-day meeting in December 2012 to build an international collaboration among researchers and decision-makers interested in the advancing use of the TDF. The participants were experienced in using the TDF to assess implementation problems, design interventions, and/or understand change processes. This guide is an output of the meeting and also draws on the authors' collective experience. Examples from the implementation research literature judged by authors to be representative of specific applications of the TDF are included in this guide. We explain and illustrate methods, with a focus on qualitative approaches, for selecting and specifying target behaviours key to implementation, selecting the study design, deciding the sampling strategy, developing study materials, collecting and analysing data, and reporting findings of TDF-based studies. Areas for development include methods for triangulating data, e.g. from interviews, questionnaires and observation and methods for designing interventions based on TDF-based problem analysis. We offer this guide to the implementation community to assist in the application of the TDF to achieve implementation objectives. Benefits of using the TDF include the provision of a theoretical basis for implementation studies, good coverage of potential reasons for slow diffusion of evidence into practice and a method for progressing from theory-based investigation to intervention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 302 X users 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 2,662 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 2662 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 395 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 377 14%
Researcher 347 13%
Student > Bachelor 180 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 139 5%
Other 421 16%
Unknown 803 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 434 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 353 13%
Psychology 245 9%
Social Sciences 210 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 56 2%
Other 419 16%
Unknown 945 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 217. 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 17 January 2024.
All research outputs
#183,168
of 25,889,720 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#7
of 1,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,822
of 334,535 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#1
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,889,720 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,823 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. 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 334,535 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.