Understanding effects in reviews of implementation interventions using the Theoretical Domains Framework

Implementation Science

Martin P. Eccles¹  Justin Presseau¹  Elizabeth A. Little¹ 

[1] Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE2 4AX, UK

关键词: Secondary analysis;    Bisphosphonates;    BMD scanning;    Fragility fracture;    Osteoporosis;    Systematic review;    Behaviour change interventions;    TDF;   

Others  :  1219015
DOI  :  10.1186/s13012-015-0280-7

 received in 2015-01-28, accepted in 2015-06-08,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Behavioural theory can be used to better understand the effects of behaviour change interventions targeting healthcare professional behaviour to improve quality of care. However, the explicit use of theory is rarely reported despite interventions inevitably involving at least an implicit idea of what factors to target to implement change.

There is a quality of care gap in the post-fracture investigation (bone mineral density (BMD) scanning) and management (bisphosphonate prescription) of patients at risk of osteoporosis. We aimed to use the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) within a systematic review of interventions to improve quality of care in post-fracture investigation. Our objectives were to explore which theoretical factors the interventions in the review may have been targeting and how this might be related to the size of the effect on rates of BMD scanning and osteoporosis treatment with bisphosphonate medication.

Methods

A behavioural scientist and a clinician independently coded TDF domains in intervention and control groups. Quantitative analyses explored the relationship between intervention effect size and total number of domains targeted, and as number of different domains targeted.

Results

Nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (10 interventions) were analysed. The five theoretical domains most frequently coded as being targeted by the interventions in the review included “memory, attention and decision processes”, “knowledge”, “environmental context and resources”, “social influences” and “beliefs about consequences”. Each intervention targeted a combination of at least four of these five domains. Analyses identified an inverse relationship between both number of times and number of different domains coded and the effect size for BMD scanning but not for bisphosphonate prescription, suggesting that the more domains the intervention targeted, the lower the observed effect size.

Conclusions

When explicit use of theory to inform interventions is absent, it is possible to retrospectively identify the likely targeted factors using theoretical frameworks such as the TDF. In osteoporosis management, this suggested that several likely determinants of healthcare professional behaviour appear not yet to have been considered in implementation interventions. This approach may serve as a useful basis for using theory-based frameworks such as the TDF to retrospectively identify targeted factors within systematic reviews of implementation interventions in other implementation contexts.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Little et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Albarracin D, Gillette JC, Earl AN, Glasman LR, Durantini MR, Ho MH. A test of major assumptions about behavior change: a comprehensive look at the effects of passive and active HIV-prevention interventions since the beginning of the epidemic. Psychol Bull. 2005; 131(6):856-97.
• [2]Noar SM, Zimmerman RS. Health Behavior Theory and cumulative knowledge regarding health behaviors: are we moving in the right direction? Health Educ Res. 2005; 20(3):275-90.
• [3]Presseau J, Johnston M, Heponiemi T, Elovainio M, Francis JJ, Eccles MP et al.. Reflective and automatic processes in healthcare professional behavior: a dual process model tested across multiple behaviors. Ann Behav Med. 2014; 48:347-358.
• [4]Presseau J, Johnston M, Francis JJ, Hrisos S, Stamp E, Steen N et al.. Theory-based predictors of multiple clinician behaviors in the management of diabetes. J Behav Med. 2014; 37:607-620.
• [5]Walker AE, Grimshaw J, Johnston M, Pitts N, Steen N, Eccles M. PRIME—PRocess modelling in ImpleMEntation research: selecting a theoretical basis for interventions to change clinical practice. BMC Health Serv Res. 2003; 19(3(1)):22. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Michie S, Abraham C. Identifying techniques that promote health behaviour change: evidence based or evidence inspired? Psychol Health. 2004; 19:29-49.
• [7]Presseau J, Hawthorne G, Sniehotta FF, Steen N, Francis JJ, Johnston M et al.. Improving diabetes care through examining, advising, and prescribing (IDEA): protocol for a theory-based cluster randomised controlled trial of a multiple behaviour change intervention aimed at primary healthcare professionals. Implement Sci. 2014; 9:61. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions. Implement Sci. 2006; 1:4. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Kim N, Stanton B, Li X, Dickersin K, Galbraith J. Effectiveness of the 40 adolescent AIDS-risk reduction interventions: a quantitative review. J Adolesc Health. 1997; 20(3):204-15.
• [10]Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Walker A, Johnston M, Pitts N. Changing the behavior of healthcare professionals: the use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58(2):107-12.
• [11]Green LW, Glasgow RE. Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research: issues in external validation and translation methodology. Eval Health Prof. 2006; 29(1):126-53.
• [12]Foy R, Eccles MP, Jamtvedt G, Young J, Grimshaw JM, Baker R. What do we know about how to do audit and feedback? Pitfalls in applying evidence from a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005; 5:50. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005; 14:26-33.
• [14]Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012; 7:37. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Francis JJ, O’Connor D, Curran J. Theories of behaviour change synthesised into a set of theoretical groupings: introducing a thematic series on the theoretical domains framework. Implement Sci. 2012; 7:35. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]French SD, Green SE, O’Connor D, McKenzie JE, Francis J, Michie S et al.. Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: a systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Implement Sci. 2012; 7:38. BioMed Central Full Text
• [17]McSherry LA, Dombrowski SU, Francis JJ, Murphy J, Martin CM, O’Leary JJ et al.. ‘It’s a can of worms’: understanding primary care practitioners’ behaviours in relation to HPV using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Implement Sci. 2012; 7:73. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Duncan EM, Francis JJ, Johnston M, Davey P, Maxwell S, McKay GA et al.. Learning curves, taking instructions, and patient safety: using a theoretical domains framework in an interview study to investigate prescribing errors among trainee doctors. Implement Sci. 2012; 7:86. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Curran JA, Brehaut J, Patey AM, Osmond M, Stiell I, Grimshaw JM. Understanding the Canadian adult CT head rule trial: use of the theoretical domains framework for process evaluation. Implement Sci. 2013; 8:25. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Amemori M, Michie S, Korhonen T, Murtomaa H, Kinnunen TH. Assessing implementation difficulties in tobacco use prevention and cessation counselling among dental providers. Implement Sci. 2011; 6:50. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21]Giangregorio L, Papaioannou A, Cranney A, Zytaruk N, Adachi JD. Fragility fractures and the osteoporosis care gap: an international phenomenon. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2006; 35(5):293-305.
• [22]Elliot-Gibson V, Bogoch ER, Jamal SA, Beaton DE. Practice patterns in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis after a fragility fracture: a systematic review. Osteoporos Int. 2004; 15(10):767-78.
• [23]Freedman KB, Kaplan FS, Bilker WB, Strom BL, Lowe RA. Treatment of osteoporosis: are physicians missing an opportunity? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82-A(8):1063-70.
• [24]Kamel HK, Hussain MS, Tariq S, Perry HM, Morley JE. Failure to diagnose and treat osteoporosis in elderly patients hospitalized with hip fracture. Am J Med. 2000; 109(4):326-8.
• [25]Colon-Emeric C, Yballe L, Sloane R, Pieper CF, Lyles KW. Expert physician recommendations and current practice patterns for evaluating and treating men with osteoporotic hip fracture. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000; 48(10):1261-3.
• [26]Gehlbach SH, Bigelow C, Heimisdottir M, May S, Walker M, Kirkwood JR. Recognition of vertebral fracture in a clinical setting. Osteoporos Int. 2000; 11(7):577-82.
• [27]Andrade SE, Majumdar SR, Chan KA, Buist DS, Go AS, Goodman M et al.. Low frequency of treatment of osteoporosis among postmenopausal women following a fracture. Arch Intern Med. 2003; 22(163(17)):2052-7.
• [28]Feldstein A, Elmer PJ, Orwoll E, Herson M, Hillier T. Bone mineral density measurement and treatment for osteoporosis in older individuals with fractures: a gap in evidence-based practice guideline implementation. Arch Intern Med. 2003; 13(163(18)):2165-72.
• [29]Siris ES, Bilezikian JP, Rubin MR, Black DM, Bockman RS, Bone HG et al.. Pins and plaster aren’t enough: a call for the evaluation and treatment of patients with osteoporotic fractures. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003; 88(8):3482-6.
• [30]Torgerson DJ, Dolan P. Prescribing by general practitioners after an osteoporotic fracture. Ann Rheum Dis. 1998; 57(6):378-9.
• [31]Cosman F, Beur SJ, LeBoff MS, Lewiecki EM, Tanner B, Randall S, et al. Clinician’s Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2014;25(10):2359–81.
• [32]Brown JP, Josse RG. 2002 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada. CMAJ. 2002; 12(167(10 Suppl)):S1-34.
• [33]Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network: management of osteoporosis. Edinburgh; 2003.
• [34]National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG): Guideline for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men from the age of 50 years in the UK. Executive Summary; 2008, updated 2010.
• [35]Alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene, strontium ranelate and teriparatide for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women. 2008.
• [36]Little EA, Eccles MP. A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions to improve post-fracture investigation and management of patients at risk of osteoporosis. Implement Sci. 2010; 5:80. BioMed Central Full Text
• [37]Gardner MJ, Brophy RH, Demetrakopoulos D, Koob J, Hong R, Rana A et al.. Interventions to improve osteoporosis treatment following hip fracture. A prospective, randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(1):3-7.
• [38]Feldstein A, Elmer PJ, Smith DH, Herson M, Orwoll E, Chen C et al.. Electronic medical record reminder improves osteoporosis management after a fracture: a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006; 54(3):450-7.
• [39]Davis JC, Guy P, Ashe MC, Liu-Ambrose T, Khan K. HipWatch: osteoporosis investigation and treatment after a hip fracture: a 6-month randomized controlled trial. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007; 62(8):888-91.
• [40]Majumdar SR, Beaupre LA, Harley CH, Hanley DA, Lier DA, Juby AG et al.. Use of a case manager to improve osteoporosis treatment after hip fracture: results of a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2007; 22(167(19)):2110-5.
• [41]Solomon DH, Polinski JM, Stedman M, Truppo C, Breiner L, Egan C et al.. Improving care of patients at-risk for osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2007; 22(3):362-7.
• [42]Cranney A, Lam M, Ruhland L, Brison R, Godwin M, Harrison MM et al.. A multifaceted intervention to improve treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women with wrist fractures: a cluster randomized trial. Osteoporos Int. 2008; 19(12):1733-40.
• [43]Majumdar SR, Johnson JA, McAlister FA, Bellerose D, Russell AS, Hanley DA et al.. Multifaceted intervention to improve diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in patients with recent wrist fracture: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ. 2008; 26(178(5)):569-75.
• [44]Miki RA, Oetgen ME, Kirk J, Insogna KL, Lindskog DM. Orthopaedic management improves the rate of early osteoporosis treatment after hip fracture. A randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90(11):2346-53.
• [45]Rozental TD, Makhni EC, Day CS, Bouxsein ML. Improving evaluation and treatment for osteoporosis following distal radial fractures. A prospective randomized intervention. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90(5):953-61.
• [46]Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33(1):159-174.
• [47]Presseau J, Ivers NM, Newham JJ, Knittle K, Danko KJ, Grimshaw JM. Using a behaviour change techniques taxonomy to identify active ingredients within trials of implementation interventions for diabetes care. Implement Sci. 2015; 10:55. BioMed Central Full Text
• [48]Michie S, Fixsen D, Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP. Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: the need for a scientific method. Implement Sci. 2009; 4:40. BioMed Central Full Text
• [49]Dane AV, Schneider BH. Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: are implementation effects out of control? Clin Psychol Rev. 1998; 18(1):23-45.
• [50]Gresham FM, Gansle KA, Noell GH. Treatment integrity in applied behavior analysis with children. J Appl Behav Anal. 1993; 26(2):257-63.
• [51]Moncher FJ, Prinz RJ. Treatment fidelity in outcome studies. Clin Psychol Rev. 1991;11.
• [52]Odom SI, Brown WH, Frey T, Karasu N, Smith-Canter LL, Strain PS. Evidence-based practices for young children with autism: contributions for single-subject design research. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities. 2003; 18:166-75.
• [53]Dombrowski S, Sniehotta F, Avenell A, Coyne J. Towards a cumulative science of behavior change: do current conduct and reporting of behavioral interventions fall short of best practice? Psychol Health. 2007; 22:869-74.
• [54]Riley B, MacDonald J, Mansi O, Kothan A, Kurtz D, von Tettenborn L et al.. Is reporting on interventions a weak link in understanding how and why they work? A preliminary exploration using community heart health exemplars. Implement Sci. 2008; 3:27. BioMed Central Full Text
• [55]Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D et al.. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014; 7(348):g1687.
• [56]Davies P, Walker AE, Grimshaw JM. A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations. Implement Sci. 2010; 5:14. BioMed Central Full Text
• [57]Francis JJ, Stockton C, Eccles MP, Johnston M, Cuthbertson BH, Grimshaw JM et al.. Evidence-based selection of theories for designing behaviour change interventions: using methods based on theoretical construct domains to understand clinicians’ blood transfusion behaviour. Br J Health Psychol. 2009; 14(Pt 4):625-46.