CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 475Behavioral Health and InterventionsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceBehavioral and Psychological Studies

From Theory-Inspired to Theory-Based Interventions: A Protocol for Developing and Testing a Methodology for Linking Behaviour Change Techniques to Theoretical Mechanisms of Action

Open access
Michie, Susan, Carey, Rachel N, Johnston, Marie, Rothman, Alexander J, de Bruin, Marijn, Kelly, Michael P, Connell, Lauren E·2018·Annals of Behavioral Medicine
DOI 10.1007/s12160-016-9816-6PMC PMC6367898
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Understanding links between behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and mechanisms of action (the processes through which they affect behaviour) helps inform the systematic development of behaviour change interventions. Purpose: This research aims to develop and test a methodology for linking BCTs to their mechanisms of action. Methods: Study 1 (published explicit links): Hypothesised links between 93 BCTs (from the 93-item BCT taxonomy, BCTTv1) and mechanisms of action will be identified from published interventions and their frequency, explicitness and precision documented. Study 2 (expert-agreed explicit links): Behaviour change experts will identify links between 61 BCTs and 26 mechanisms of action in a formal consensus study. Study 3 (integrated matrix of explicit links): Agreement between studies 1 and 2 will be evaluated and a new group of experts will discuss discrepancies. An integrated matrix of BCT-mechanism of action links, annotated to indicate strength of evidence, will be generated. Study 4 (published implicit links): To determine whether groups of co-occurring BCTs can be linked to theories, we will identify groups of BCTs that are used together from the study 1 literature. A consensus exercise will be used to rate strength of links between groups of BCT and theories. Conclusions: A formal methodology for linking BCTs to their hypothesised mechanisms of action can contribute to the development and evaluation of behaviour change interventions. This research is a step towards developing a behaviour change 'ontology', specifying relations between BCTs, mechanisms of action, modes of delivery, populations, settings and types of behaviour.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This protocol describes a four-study program to develop and test a methodology for linking behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to hypothesised mechanisms of action and behavioural theories. It combines literature synthesis and expert consensus to produce annotated matrices intended to support theory-based intervention development and evaluation.

Key findings

  • No empirical results are reported; planned outputs include matrices of BCT–mechanism links from published explicit links (Study 1), expert-agreed links (Study 2), an integrated matrix (Study 3), and BCT group–theory links (Study 4).
  • Study 1 will identify explicit links between 93 BCTs from BCTTv1 and mechanisms of action in published interventions, coding frequency, explicitness (1 = not explicit, 2 = very explicit), and precision.
  • Study 2 will use 105 experts in five groups of 21 to rate links between 61 BCTs and 26 mechanisms of action (14 Theoretical Domains Framework domains plus 12 frequently occurring mechanisms from 83 theories).
  • Study 3 will triangulate Study 1 and Study 2 with approximately 20 new experts; Study 4 will use approximately 20 experts and four consensus rounds to link groups of co-occurring BCTs to theories.

Methods

  • Design: four linked studies using literature synthesis, modified Nominal Group Technique/Delphi-style online consensus (Qualtrics, Loomio), and triangulation.
  • Data or sample: Study 1 searches Web of Science and Google Scholar, contacts experts, and checks reference lists; inclusion requires codable BCTs and clear hypothesised mechanism links. Study 2 recruits 105 experts; Study 3 approximately 20 experts; Study 4 approximately 20 experts.
  • Main analysis: Study 1 uses heat maps and frequency/explicitness/precision, with inter-rater reliability via Prevalence and Bias Adjusted Kappa (PABAK). Study 2 categorises round 3 ratings into agreement that there is a link, agreement that there is no link, disagreement, and uncertainty. Study 3 compares evidence and resolves discrepancies; Study 4 categorises round 4 ratings.

Limitations

  • Stated: the research aims to identify explicit and implicit hypothesised links, not empirically demonstrated statistical associations.
  • Stated: Study 1 is not a systematic review and included studies may not be representative; absence of links in papers may reflect wording or omission rather than a belief that no link exists; consensus results depend on expert selection, willingness to participate, and representativeness.
  • Evident: as a protocol, no results or validation of the matrices are available; the methodology’s success depends on future completion and empirical testing.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12160-016-9816-6

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 71 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Premisecitation

    A fuller understanding of intervention impact on behaviour and health requires knowledge of the mechanisms of action through which the BCTs have their effect.

    “However, a fuller understanding of intervention impact on behaviour and health requires knowledge of the mechanisms of action through which the BCTs have their effect.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Interpretationreasoning

    The lack of an agreed-upon method for linking BCTs to mechanisms of action hinders the accumulation of evidence for how researchers hypothesise BCTs to have their effect.

    “Despite an abundance of BCTs and theoretical models of behaviour and behaviour change, we do not yet have an agreed-upon method for systematically linking BCTs to individual hypothesised mechanisms of action. This hinders the accumulation of evidence for how researchers hypothesise BCTs to have their effect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: There is currently no agreed-upon method for systematically linking BCTs to individual hypothesised mechanisms of action.
  • Premisecitation

    Specification of intervention content by BCTs has transformed methods for reporting the content of behaviour change interventions, facilitating greater precision and consistency in research.

    “Specification of intervention content by BCTs has transformed methods for reporting the content of behaviour change interventions, which facilitates greater precision and consistency in research [51].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [51] Johnson, 2014, Effects of behavioral intervention content on HIV prevention outcomes: A meta-review of metaanalyses, J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    Interventions that combine self-monitoring with other self-regulatory BCTs (such as goal setting or action planning) have been associated with improved effectiveness.

    “For example, interventions that combine self-monitoring with other self-regulatory BCTs (such as goal setting or action planning) have been associated with improved effectiveness [48].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [48] Michie, 2009, Effective techniques in healthy eating and physical activity interventions: A meta-regression, Health Psychol source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    Assessments of published interventions have found that interventions that employed BCT groups were more effective than those that used only one BCT.

    “Assessments of published interventions have found that those that employed BCT groups were more effective than those that used only one BCT [48–50].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [48] Michie, 2009, Effective techniques in healthy eating and physical activity interventions: A meta-regression, Health Psychol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [49] Dombrowski, 2012, Optimizing acceptability and feasibility of an evidence-based behavioral intervention for obese adults with obesity-related co-morbidities or additional risk factors for co-morbidities: An open-pilot intervention study in secondary care, Patient Educ Couns source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [50] Ivers, 2012, Audit and feedback: Effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes, Cochrane Libr

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims. 9
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 31
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Linking BCTs to the mechanisms of action described in behavioural theory allows researchers to target mechanisms of action more deliberatively and makes it easier for investigators to design studies that can evaluate the processes underlying effective interventions.

    “Linking BCTs to the mechanisms of action described in behavioural theory allows researchers to target mechanisms of action more deliberatively and makes it easier for investigators to design studies that can evaluate the processes underlying effective interventions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    BCTTv1 has been used to code interventions across a variety of behavioural domains, including physical activity and dietary behaviours, oral hygiene, hazardous and harmful drinking, sexual health, blood pressure control/management, antibiotic-prescribing and diabetes preventative behaviours.

    “BCTTv1 has been used to code interventions across a variety of behavioural domains, including physical activity and dietary behaviours [31, 32], oral hygiene behaviours [33], hazardous and harmful drinking [34], sexual health behaviours [35–37], blood pressure control/management behaviours [38], antibiotic-prescribing [39, 40] and diabetes preventative behaviours [41].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [31] Young, 2014, The SHED-ITWeight Loss Maintenance trial protocol: A randomised controlled trial of a weight loss maintenance program for overweight and obese men, Contemp Clin Trials source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [32] Po’e, 2013, Growing Right Onto Wellness (GROW): A family-centered, community-based obesity prevention randomized controlled trial for preschool child–parent pairs, Contemp Clin Trials source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [33] Schwarzer, 2014, A brief intervention changing oral self-care, self-efficacy, and self-monitoring, Brit J Health Psych source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [34] Newbury-Birch, 2014, Alcohol screening and brief interventions for offenders in the probation setting (SIPS trial): A pragmatic multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial, Alcohol Alcohol source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    BCTTv1 incorporated a number of cross-behaviour BCT taxonomies and some behaviour-specific taxonomies for physical activity, alcohol use, smoking and condom use.

    “BCTTv1 incorporated a number of cross-behaviour BCT taxonomies [25, 26] and some behaviour-specific taxonomies for physical activity [27], alcohol use [28], smoking [29] and condom use [30].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [25] Abraham, 2008, A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions, Health Psychol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [26] Michie, 2008, From theory to intervention: Mapping theoretically derived behavioural determinants to behaviour change techniques, Appl Psychol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [27] Michie, 2011, A refined taxonomy of behaviour change techniques to help people change their physical activity and healthy eating behaviours: The CALO-RE taxonomy, Psychol Health source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [28] Michie, 2012, Identification of behaviour change techniques to reduce excessive alcohol consumption, Addiction source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    BCTTv1 has been used by systematic reviewers to identify BCTs within intervention papers, in order to facilitate intervention comparison and evaluate technique efficacy.

    “BCTTv1 has also been used by systematic reviewers to identify BCTs within intervention papers, in order to facilitate intervention comparison and evaluate technique efficacy (e.g. [42–47]).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 6 sources checked
    • cites [42] Jones, 2014, Evaluating the effectiveness of health belief model interventions in improving adherence: A systematic review, Health Psychol Rev source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [43] Morton, 2014, The effectiveness of motivational interviewing for health behaviour change in primary care settings: A systematic review, Health Psychol Rev

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [44] Arnott, 2014, Efficacy of behavioural interventions for transport behaviour change: Systematic review, meta-analysis and intervention coding, Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [45] Prestwich, 2014, Does theory influence the effectiveness of health behavior interventions? Meta-analysis, Health Psychol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [46] Shahab, 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [47] Shahab, 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    There is a recognised need to specify interventions in greater detail and with more consistent terminology and for evaluation studies to specify the components of the interventions in both the experimental and control groups.

    “There is a recognised need to specify interventions in greater detail and with more consistent terminology and for evaluation studies to specify the components of the interventions in both the experimental and control groups [17–21].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [17] Michie, 2011, Strengthening evaluation and implementation by specifying components of behaviour change interventions: A study protocol, Implement Sci source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [18] Michie, 2012, Theories and techniques of behaviour change: Developing a cumulative science of behaviour change, Health Psychol Rev source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [19] de Bruin, 2009, Standard care quality determines treatment outcomes in control groups of HAART-adherence intervention studies: Implications for the interpretation and comparison of intervention effects, Health Psychol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [20] de Bruin, 2010, Standard care impact on effects of highly active antiretroviral therapy adherence interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Arch Intern Med source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [21] Craig, 2008, Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance, Br Med J

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Understanding links between behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and mechanisms of action helps inform the systematic development of behaviour change interventions.

    “Understanding links between behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and mechanisms of action (the processes through which they affect behaviour) helps inform the systematic development of behaviour change interventions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: For interventions to be effective, their active components (BCTs) should target relevant mechanisms of action.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    There is increased recognition of the need for systematic and extensive application of theory to the design of interventions.

    “There is increased recognition of the need for systematic and extensive application of theory to the design of interventions [18, 55–59]; this is reflected, for example, in the UK Medical Research Council’s framework for designing and evaluating complex interventions [21] and the Intervention Mapping framework [60] for planning health promotion programmes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 8 sources checked
    • cites [18] Michie, 2012, Theories and techniques of behaviour change: Developing a cumulative science of behaviour change, Health Psychol Rev source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [55] Prestwich, 2015, Using theory to develop and test interventions to promote changes in health behaviour: Evidence, issues, and recommendations, Curr Opin Psychol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [56] Rothman, 2013, Advancing innovations in social/personality psychology and health: Opportunities and challenges, Health Psychol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [57] Glanz, 2010, The role of behavioral science theory in development and implementation of public health interventions, Annu Rev Public Health source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [58] Rothman, 2009, Capitalizing on opportunities to refine health behavior theories, Health Educ Behav source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [59] Michie, 2010, Are interventions theory-based? Development of a theory coding scheme, Health Psychol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [21] Craig, 2008, Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance, Br Med J

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [60] Bartholomew, 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    BCTTv1 is an extensive, integrated, hierarchical classification system for reliably specifying intervention components in terms of 93 BCTs, organised into 16 groupings.

    “This is an extensive, integrated, hierarchical classification system for reliably specifying intervention components in terms of 93 BCTs, organised into 16 groupings [15, 16, 22–24].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [15] Michie, 2015, Behaviour change techniques: The development and evaluation of a taxonomic method for reporting and describing behaviour change interventions, Health Technol Assess source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [16] Michie, 2013, The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions, Ann Behav Med source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [22] Cane, 2014, From lists of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to structured hierarchies: Comparison of two methods of developing a hierarchy of BCTs, Health Psychol

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [23] Wood, 2015, Applying the behaviour change technique (BCT) taxonomy v1: A study of coder training, Transl Behav Med source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [24] Abraham, 2015, Reliability of identification of behaviour change techniques in intervention descriptions, Ann Behav Med source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The research will make no inferences regarding the empirically demonstrated statistical associations of the BCT-mechanism links; it only identifies hypothesised links.

    “Thus, we will make no inferences regarding the empirically demonstrated statistical associations of these links.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The online discussion will be anonymous.

    “The online discussion will take place within each of the five expert groups and will be anonymous.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The 105 experts will be separated into five groups (21 experts per group).

    “The 105 experts will be separated into five groups (21 experts per group).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    BCTs will be assigned to groups of experts using stratified random allocation.

    “BCTs will be rank-ordered according to their frequency of use in interventions [15] and these will be assigned to groups of experts using stratified random allocation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [15] Michie, 2015, Behaviour change techniques: The development and evaluation of a taxonomic method for reporting and describing behaviour change interventions, Health Technol Assess source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses have examined the association between BCTs and theory.

    “Systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses have also examined the association between BCTs and theory [45], explored which BCTs are most effective in changing particular mechanisms of action, such as self-efficacy [76–79], and measured the overall effect of mechanisms of action, e.g. a change in intention on behaviour [80].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [45] Prestwich, 2014, Does theory influence the effectiveness of health behavior interventions? Meta-analysis, Health Psychol source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The included studies in Study 1 may not be representative of all published behaviour change interventions.

    “the included studies may not be representative of all published behaviour change interventions”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The matrices of links resulting from this initiative will contribute to the methodological resources available to behaviour change scientists, providing a more efficient and systematic way in which to identify and evaluate the theoretical processes hypothesised to underlie BCTs.

    “The matrices of links resulting from this initiative will contribute to the methodological resources available to behaviour change scientists, providing a more efficient and systematic way in which to identify and evaluate the theoretical processes hypothesised to underlie BCTs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The absence of a BCT-mechanism link in a paper does not imply that the authors believe no link exists; it may be due to wording or omission.

    “one cannot assume that the links not included in these papers reflect a belief that these BCTs and mechanisms of action are not linked. Rather, this may be due to the wording in the paper or an omission of detail by the authors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Study 1 will not be a systematic review.

    “Study 1 will not be a systematic review”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Research has attempted to map BCTs to theoretical domains, which are clusters of theoretical constructs, and to identify theoretical mediators of change using process evaluations.

    “Research has also attempted to map BCTs to theoretical domains, which are clusters of theoretical constructs [22, 66], and to identify theoretical mediators of change using process evaluations [81–83].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [22] Cane, 2014, From lists of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to structured hierarchies: Comparison of two methods of developing a hierarchy of BCTs, Health Psychol

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [66] French, 2012, Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: A systematic approach using the theoretical domains framework, Implement Sci source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [81] Araújo-Soares, 2009, Development and exploratory cluster-randomised opportunistic trial of a theory-based intervention to enhance physical activity among adolescents, Psychol Health source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [82] Fletcher, 2013, A randomised controlled trial and mediation analysis of the ‘Healthy Habits’, telephone-based dietary intervention for preschool children, Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [83] Foy, 2007, The development of a theory-based intervention to promote appropriate disclosure of a diagnosis of dementia, BMC Health Serv Res source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Reliability will be calculated using Prevalence and Bias Adjusted Kappa (PABAK).

    “Reliability will be calculated using Prevalence and Bias Adjusted Kappa PABAK [84], as has been used in previous BCT coding research to allow for the high prevalence of negative agreement and differences between coders in their threshold for coding a BCT [15].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [84] Byrt, 1993, Bias, prevalence and kappa, J Clin Epidemiol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [15] Michie, 2015, Behaviour change techniques: The development and evaluation of a taxonomic method for reporting and describing behaviour change interventions, Health Technol Assess source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation

    There is a need for a consensus about how the individual mechanisms of action specified in theories can be linked with particular intervention components.

    “Thus, whilst there are integrative frameworks such as the TDF, and general intervention development frameworks such as intervention mapping and others (e.g. [21, 60, 72, 73]), there is a need for a consensus about how the individual mechanisms of action specified in these theories can be linked with particular intervention components [18, 62].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [18] Michie, 2012, Theories and techniques of behaviour change: Developing a cumulative science of behaviour change, Health Psychol Rev source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [62] Michie, 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The discussion will be asynchronous to facilitate experts participating from various time zones.

    “The discussion will be asynchronous to facilitate experts participating from various time zones.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Inter-rater reliability between coders will be calculated for both BCTs and BCT-mechanism of action links.

    “Inter-rater reliability between coders will be calculated for both BCTs and BCT-mechanism of action links.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The results of all consensus procedures depend on the selection of experts, their willingness to participate, and how representative their opinions are of the wider behaviour change research community.

    “all of the consensus procedures depend on the selection of experts and the results therefore depend on their willingness to participate and the extent to which their opinions are representative of the wider behaviour change research community.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study 1 coding database will be made publicly available at the end of the project.

    “At the end of the project, the study 1 coding database will be made publically available, and it will be possible for us and others to conduct additional analyses of data from these studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Without a transparent, agreed-upon method for identifying hypothesised links, and a better understanding of the mechanisms of action believed to underlie each BCT, evidence accumulation will continue to be slow and unsystematic.

    “However, without a transparent, agreed-upon method for identifying hypothesised links, and a better understanding of the mechanisms of action believed to underlie each BCT, evidence accumulation will continue to be slow and unsystematic.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: There is currently no agreed-upon method for systematically linking BCTs to individual hypothesised mechanisms of action.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    A formal methodology for linking BCTs to their hypothesised mechanisms of action can contribute to the development and evaluation of behaviour change interventions.

    “A formal methodology for linking BCTs to their hypothesised mechanisms of action can contribute to the development and evaluation of behaviour change interventions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: For interventions to be effective, their active components (BCTs) should target relevant mechanisms of action.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    This work has demonstrated the potential for BCT-mechanism of action links to be identified.

    “This work has demonstrated the potential for BCT-mechanism of action links to be identified.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) specifies 14 theoretical domains, each of which includes several theoretical constructs that are similar in definition but derive from different theories.

    “The TDF specifies 14 theoretical domains, each of which includes several theoretical constructs that are similar in definition, but derive from different theories, and which may be relevant to understanding and changing behaviour.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [64] Cane, 2012, Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research, Implement Sci source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [65] Michie, 2005, Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: A consensus approach, Qual Saf Health Care source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Included experts will rate their expertise in BCTs, behaviour change theories and interventions as ≥4 and report that they have designed or helped to design a behaviour change intervention that used specific BCTs and was grounded in a behaviour change theory at least to some extent.

    “Included in the study will be those who (i) rate their expertise in BCTs, behaviour change theories and interventions as ≥4 (on a 7-point scale, where 0 indicates ‘no expertise’ and 7 indicates ‘profound expertise’) and (ii) report that they have designed or helped to design a behaviour change intervention(s) that ‘used specific behaviour change techniques’ and that ‘was specifically grounded in a”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The modified Nominal Group Technique will take place online.

    “Our modified NGT will take place online [89], with expert ratings given via Qualtrics [90] and the discussion hosted on an online forum called ‘Loomio’ [91].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [89] Lago, 2007, Structuring group decision making in a web-based environment by using the nominal group technique, Comput Ind Eng source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [90] 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [91] Loomio, 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Experts will be randomised to one of 5 groups, with 21 experts per group.

    “Experts will be randomised to one of 5 groups, with 21 experts per group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    This research is a step towards developing a behaviour change 'ontology', specifying relations between BCTs, mechanisms of action, modes of delivery, populations, settings and types of behaviour.

    “This research is a step towards developing a behaviour change ‘ontology’, specifying relations between BCTs, mechanisms of action, modes of delivery, populations, settings and types of behaviour.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Research in the UK has mapped a set of 35 BCTs to theoretically derived behavioural determinants.

    “Research in the UK has mapped a set of 35 BCTs to theoretically derived behavioural determinants [26].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [26] Michie, 2008, From theory to intervention: Mapping theoretically derived behavioural determinants to behaviour change techniques, Appl Psychol source

      Not checked in the free run.

33 of 33

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    For interventions to be effective, their active components (BCTs) should target relevant mechanisms of action.

    “However, for interventions to be effective, their active components (i.e. behaviour change techniques (BCTs)) should target relevant mechanisms of action.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is currently no agreed-upon method for systematically linking BCTs to individual hypothesised mechanisms of action.

    “Despite an abundance of BCTs and theoretical models of behaviour and behaviour change, we do not yet have an agreed-upon method for systematically linking BCTs to individual hypothesised mechanisms of action.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The frequency with which groups of co-occurring BCTs are used in interventions may reflect shared implicit theorising about synergistic or additive relationships between BCTs.

    “The frequency with which group of co-occurring BCTs are used in interventions may reflect the extent to which there is a shared, often implicit, theorising of a synergistic or additive relationship between BCTs.”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Work to link implementation strategies and behavior change techniques to hypothesized mechanisms is underway.

    “Work to link implementation strategies and behavior change techniques to hypothesized mechanisms is underway (67, 78), which promises to improve our understanding of how, when, where, and why implementation strategies are effective.”

    From Enhancing the Impact of Implementation Strategies in Healthcare: A Research Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as [78]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Seven-point expertise scale has eight numbered values

    Minor

    The stated endpoints, 0 and 7, give eight integer response values (0 through 7), not seven.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Davies, 2013, The Drugs Don’t Work
  2. Marteau, 2015, Emerging Behavioral and Social Science Perspectives on Population Health
  3. Abraham, 2012, Reliability and utility of the SHARP taxonomy of behaviour change techniques, Psychol Health, 27, 1
  4. Dale, 2014, Behaviour change and sexual health: SHARE programme evaluation, Health Educ J, 114
  5. Shahab, 2012, BCT analysis of existing, cost-effective interventions
  6. Shahab, 2013, BCT analysis of behaviour change interventions reported in studies of cost effectiveness
  7. Bartholomew, 2011, Planning Health Promotion Programs: An Intervention Mapping Approach
  8. Davis, 2014, Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across disciplines: A scoping review, Health Psychol Rev
  9. Michie, 2014, ABC of Behaviour Change Theories
  10. Michie, 2014, The Behaviour Change Wheel: A Guide to Designing Interventions
  11. Green, 1991, Health Promotion Planning: An Educational and Environmental Approach
  12. Glanz, 2008, Health Behaviour and Health Education: Theory, Research and Practice
  13. 2015, Qualtrics Research Suite
  14. Kelly, 2015, Thinking About Behaviour Change: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Michie, S., Carey, R. N., Johnston, M., Rothman, A. J., de Bruin, M., Kelly, M. P., & Connell, L. E.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
  • University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK
Corresponding author
Michie, Susan
ORCID
Venue
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2017-12-13
Volume
52
Issue
6
Pages
501-512
ISSN
  • 0742-5554 (ISSN-L)
  • 0883-6612
  • 1532-4796
DOI
10.1007/s12160-016-9816-6
PMC
PMC6367898
OpenAlex
W2467144198
Semantic Scholar
c03b476825b6678246987fb345021b3fd2388d54
Cited by
475
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 96 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
48.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Annals of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (publishedVersion)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council (MR/L011115/1)
  • UK Medical Research Council (MR/L011115/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
Keywords
behaviour change techniques, mechanism of action, BCT taxonomy, behaviour change interventions, intervention development, expert consensus, theory-based intervention
MeSH terms
Clinical Studies as Topic, Behavioral Medicine, Humans, Psychological Theory, Health Behavior, Consensus

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review