NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Michie S, Wood CE, Johnston M, et al. Behaviour change techniques: the development and evaluation of a taxonomic method for reporting and describing behaviour change interventions (a suite of five studies involving consensus methods, randomised controlled trials and analysis of qualitative data). Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015 Nov. (Health Technology Assessment, No. 19.99.)

Cover of Behaviour change techniques: the development and evaluation of a taxonomic method for reporting and describing behaviour change interventions (a suite of five studies involving consensus methods, randomised controlled trials and analysis of qualitative data)

Behaviour change techniques: the development and evaluation of a taxonomic method for reporting and describing behaviour change interventions (a suite of five studies involving consensus methods, randomised controlled trials and analysis of qualitative data).

Show details

Appendix 1Changes to protocol

Section of protocolDetails of changes made (e.g. addition, substitution, elaboration)Rationale for change
Methods: phases 2a, 2b and 2cIn the protocol, we refer to phase 1 (1a and 1b), 2 (2a and 2b) and 3 as markers for phases of development, evaluation and prototyping the developed taxonomy (or ‘nomenclature’ as referred to in the protocol). In this report, we refer to the phases but omit the subphases (i.e. 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b), instead referring to study 1, study 2, study 3, etc.To keep the structure of the report, simple and coherent
Methods: phase 2a – nomenclature training resource materialsSubstitution: we proposed development of ‘training videos’ for use in phase 2c. Rather than developing videos, we were able to source existing videosThe existing videos contained an appropriate range of BCTs (from NCSCT www​.ncsct.co.uk35) suitable for use in this phase
Methods: phase 3 – prototype nomenclatureElaboration: we proposed production of a web-based user’s resource and user manual (to include the full, developed taxonomy, guidance on its use, and evidence of reliability, consensus and examples of each BCT from interventions). We developed this idea further and produced (1) a project website, (2) an online, interactive training resource for taxonomy users and (3) a smartphone application version of the full BCTTv1The rapid development of technology over the course of the project provided us the opportunity to produce interactive resources and engage with a much wider audience than originally proposed
Analyses: phase 2b – decoding/interpreting BCI protocolsSubstitution: we proposed examining reliability ranges across type of coder as well as type of protocol. We focused on examining reliability across types of protocolThe unevenness in our sample of coders (as discussed in Chapter 8) prevented us from examining reliability across types of coder
Analyses: phase 2c – encoding/writing BCI protocolsElaboration: we proposed that ‘raters’ would judge (1) ease of understanding, (2) adequacy of information required to undertake a replication and (3) ease of identification of discrete BCTs. In the report, we refer to two separate groups of participants completing this assessment: ‘raters’ and ‘coders’We considered that the most appropriate method of assessing (3) would be to ask participants to code intervention descriptions into component BCTs. Therefore, for clarity we refer to participants assessing (1) and (2) as ‘raters’ and those assessing (3) as ‘coders’
Analyses: phase 2c – encoding/writing BCI protocolsSubstitution: proposed using Q sort methods (a research method used to examine how people think about a specific topic) to identify whether or not availability of the taxonomy when reporting leads to better written intervention descriptions. In the report, we do not report use of these methodsGiven the complex nature of the proposed analyses, we have decided to publish this study as a separate paper (Johnston M, Johnston DW, Wood CE, Hardeman W, Francis J, Michie S. University of Aberdeen, 2015)
Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2015. This work was produced by Michie et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License.

Bookshelf ID: NBK327616

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (1.7M)

Other titles in this collection

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...