↓ Skip to main content

To what extent can behaviour change techniques be identified within an adaptable implementation package for primary care? A prospective directed content analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
To what extent can behaviour change techniques be identified within an adaptable implementation package for primary care? A prospective directed content analysis
Published in
Implementation Science, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0704-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liz Glidewell, Thomas A. Willis, Duncan Petty, Rebecca Lawton, Rosemary R. C. McEachan, Emma Ingleson, Peter Heudtlass, Andrew Davies, Tony Jamieson, Cheryl Hunter, Suzanne Hartley, Kara Gray-Burrows, Susan Clamp, Paul Carder, Sarah Alderson, Amanda J. Farrin, Robbie Foy, on behalf of the ASPIRE programme team

Abstract

Interpreting evaluations of complex interventions can be difficult without sufficient description of key intervention content. We aimed to develop an implementation package for primary care which could be delivered using typically available resources and could be adapted to target determinants of behaviour for each of four quality indicators: diabetes control, blood pressure control, anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation and risky prescribing. We describe the development and prospective verification of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) embedded within the adaptable implementation packages. We used an over-lapping multi-staged process. We identified evidence-based, candidate delivery mechanisms-mainly audit and feedback, educational outreach and computerised prompts and reminders. We drew upon interviews with primary care professionals using the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore likely determinants of adherence to quality indicators. We linked determinants to candidate BCTs. With input from stakeholder panels, we prioritised likely determinants and intervention content prior to piloting the implementation packages. Our content analysis assessed the extent to which embedded BCTs could be identified within the packages and compared them across the delivery mechanisms and four quality indicators. Each implementation package included at least 27 out of 30 potentially applicable BCTs representing 15 of 16 BCT categories. Whilst 23 BCTs were shared across all four implementation packages (e.g. BCTs relating to feedback and comparing behaviour), some BCTs were unique to certain delivery mechanisms (e.g. 'graded tasks' and 'problem solving' for educational outreach). BCTs addressing the determinants 'environmental context' and 'social and professional roles' (e.g. 'restructuring the social and 'physical environment' and 'adding objects to the environment') were indicator specific. We found it challenging to operationalise BCTs targeting 'environmental context', 'social influences' and 'social and professional roles' within our chosen delivery mechanisms. We have demonstrated a transparent process for selecting, operationalising and verifying the BCT content in implementation packages adapted to target four quality indicators in primary care. There was considerable overlap in BCTs identified across the four indicators suggesting core BCTs can be embedded and verified within delivery mechanisms commonly available to primary care. Whilst feedback reports can include a wide range of BCTs, computerised prompts can deliver BCTs at the time of decision making, and educational outreach can allow for flexibility and individual tailoring in delivery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Professor 6 6%
Other 25 26%
Unknown 25 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 13%
Psychology 13 13%
Social Sciences 8 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 29 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 19 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,298,781
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#526
of 1,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,729
of 330,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#27
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,723 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 330,704 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.