Do Combinations of Behavior Change Techniques That Occur Frequently in Interventions Reflect Underlying Theory?

BACKGROUND: Behavioral interventions typically include multiple behavior change techniques (BCTs). The theory informing the selection of BCTs for an intervention may be stated explicitly or remain unreported, thus impeding the identification of links between theory and behavior change outcomes. PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify groups of BCTs commonly occurring together in behavior change interventions and examine whether behavior change theories underlying these groups could be identified. METHODS: The study involved three phases: (a) a factor analysis to identify groups of co-occurring BCTs from 277 behavior change intervention reports; (b) examining expert consensus (n = 25) about links between BCT groups and behavioral theories; (c) a comparison of the expert-linked theories with theories explicitly mentioned by authors of the 277 intervention reports. RESULTS: Five groups of co-occurring BCTs (range: 3-13 BCTs per group) were identified through factor analysis. Experts agreed on five links (≥80% of experts), comprising three BCT groups and five behavior change theories. Four of the five BCT group-theory links agreed by experts were also stated by study authors in intervention reports using similar groups of BCTs. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to identify groups of BCTs frequently used together in interventions. Experts made shared inferences about behavior change theory underlying these BCT groups, suggesting that it may be possible to propose a theoretical basis for interventions where authors do not explicitly put forward a theory. These results advance our understanding of theory use in multicomponent interventions and build the evidence base for further understanding theory-based intervention development and evaluation.

Measuring fidelity of delivery of the Community Occupational Therapy in Dementia-UK intervention.

BACKGROUND: Interpreting data about intervention effectiveness requires an understanding of which intervention components were delivered and whether they were delivered as planned (fidelity of delivery). These studies aimed to develop a reliable measure for assessing fidelity of delivery of the Community Occupational Therapy in Dementia-UK intervention (COTiD-UK) (Study 1) and measure fidelity of delivery of COTiD-UK across sessions, sites and occupational therapists (Study 2). METHODS: The studies used a longitudinal observational design nested within a multi-site randomised controlled trial. Where practicable, all intervention sessions were audio-recorded. Fidelity checklists and coding guidelines were developed, piloted and refined until good agreement was achieved between two coders. Ten percent of sessions were purposively sampled from 12 sites and 31 occupational therapists. Transcripts were coded using checklists developed in Study 1; 10% of sets of intervention session transcripts were double coded to ensure that agreement was maintained. Percentages of components that were delivered were calculated for each session, site and occupational therapist. RESULTS: A reliable measure of fidelity of delivery for COTiD-UK was developed after several rounds of piloting and amendments. COTiD-UK was delivered with moderate fidelity across all six sessions (range: 52.4-75.5%). The mean range of fidelity varied across sites (26.7-91.2%) and occupational therapists (26.7-94.1%). CONCLUSIONS: A reliable, systematic method for measuring fidelity of delivery of COTiD-UK was developed and applied, and can be adapted for use in similar interventions. As COTiD-UK was delivered with moderate fidelity, there is a reasonable degree of confidence that intervention effects were attributable to COTiD-UK.

Development of an online tool for linking behavior change techniques and mechanisms of action based on triangulation of findings from literature synthesis and expert consensus.

Researchers, practitioners, and policymakers develop interventions to change behavior based on their understanding of how behavior change techniques (BCTs) impact the determinants of behavior. A transparent, systematic, and accessible method of linking BCTs with the processes through which they change behavior (i.e., their mechanisms of action [MoAs]) would advance the understanding of intervention effects and improve theory and intervention development. The purpose of this study is to triangulate evidence for hypothesized BCT-MoA links obtained in two previous studies and present the results in an interactive, online tool. Two previous studies generated evidence on links between 56 BCTs and 26 MoAs based on their frequency in literature synthesis and on expert consensus. Concordance between the findings of the two studies was examined using multilevel modeling. Uncertainties and differences between the two studies were reconciled by 16 behavior change experts using consensus development methods. The resulting evidence was used to generate an online tool. The two studies showed concordance for 25 of the 26 MoAs and agreement for 37 links and for 460 "nonlinks." A further 55 links were resolved by consensus (total of 92 [37 + 55] hypothesized BCT-MoA links). Full data on 1,456 possible links was incorporated into the online interactive Theory and Technique Tool (https://theoryandtechniquetool.humanbehaviourchange.org/). This triangulation of two distinct sources of evidence provides guidance on how BCTs may affect the mechanisms that change behavior and is available as a resource for behavior change intervention designers, researchers and theorists, supporting intervention design, research synthesis, and collaborative research.

An ontology-based modelling system (OBMS) for representing behaviour change theories applied to 76 theories.

Background: To efficiently search, compare, test and integrate behaviour change theories, they need to be specified in a way that is clear, consistent and computable. An ontology-based modelling system (OBMS) has previously been shown to be able to represent five commonly used theories in this way. We aimed to assess whether the OBMS could be applied more widely and to create a database of behaviour change theories, their constructs and propositions. Methods: We labelled the constructs within 71 theories and used the OBMS to represent the relationships between the constructs. Diagrams of each theory were sent to authors or experts for feedback and amendment. The 71 finalised diagrams plus the five previously generated diagrams were used to create a searchable database of 76 theories in the form of construct-relationship-construct triples. We conducted a set of illustrative analyses to characterise theories in the database. Results: All 71 theories could be satisfactorily represented using this system. In total, 35 (49%) were finalised with no or very minor amendment. The remaining 36 (51%) were finalised after changes to the constructs (seven theories), relationships between constructs (15 theories) or both (14 theories) following author/expert feedback. The mean number of constructs per theory was 20 (min. = 6, max. = 72), with the mean number of triples per theory 31 (min. = 7, max. = 89). Fourteen distinct relationship types were used, of which the most commonly used was 'influences', followed by 'part of'. Conclusions: The OBMS can represent a wide array of behavioural theories in a precise, computable format. This system should provide a basis for better integration and synthesis of theories than has hitherto been possible.

A randomised controlled trial of the Group Stepping Stones Triple P training programme for parents of children with developmental disabilities.

The central aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of Group Stepping Stones Triple P (GSSTP) in an Irish context for families of children with both developmental disabilities and internalising and externalising behavioural problems. Parents of 84 children (mean age = 5.73; SD = 2.06) with developmental disabilities and co-occurring behaviour problems attending Irish public health services were randomly assigned to a 9-week GSSTP group or a waiting list control (WLC) group. All parents completed self-report measures before (Time 1) and after (Time 2) the programme and parents in the GSSTP group were assessed at 3- to 5-month follow-up (Time 3). At Time 2, clinical improvement and reliable change rates on the primary dependent variables (summary scales of the Developmental Behaviour Checklist and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire) were significantly higher in the GSSTP group than in the WLC group. At Time 2, mean scores of the GSSTP group showed significant, small to medium improvements relative to the WLC group on parent-reported child behaviour problems, parenting skills and confidence, and parental adjustment. Most of these improvements were maintained at 3- to 5-month follow-up. These results indicate that GSSTP is a promising intervention for improving child behaviour and parenting outcomes in a mixed-disability group in an Irish context.