CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 376Behavioral Health and InterventionsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceBehavioral and Psychological Studies

From lists of behaviour change techniques ( BCT s) to structured hierarchies: Comparison of two methods of developing a hierarchy of BCT s

Open access
Cane, James, Richardson, Michelle, Johnston, Marie, Ladha, Ruhina, Michie, Susan·2015·British Journal of Health Psychology
DOI 10.1111/bjhp.12102
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objectives: Behaviour change technique ( BCT ) T axonomy v1 is a hierarchically grouped, consensus‐based taxonomy of 93 BCT s for reporting intervention content. To enhance the use and understanding of BCT s, the aims of the present study were to (1) quantitatively examine the ‘bottom‐up’ hierarchical structure of Taxonomy v1, (2) identify whether BCT s can be reliably mapped to theoretical domains using a ‘top‐down’ theoretically driven approach, and (3) identify any overlap between the ‘bottom‐up’ and ‘top‐down’ groupings. Methods and design: The ‘bottom‐up’ structure was examined for higher‐order groupings using a dendrogram derived from hierarchical cluster analysis. For the theory‐based ‘top‐down’ structure, 18 experts sorted BCT s into 14 theoretical domains. Discriminant Content Validity was used to identify groupings, and chi‐square tests and Pearson's residuals were used to examine the overlap between groupings. Results: Behaviour change techniques relating to ‘Reward and Punishment’ and ‘Cues and Cue Responses’ were perceived as markedly different to other BCT s. Fifty‐nine of the BCT s were reliably allocated to 12 of the 14 theoretical domains; 47 were significant and 12 were of borderline significance. Thirty‐four of 208 ‘bottom‐up’ × ‘top‐down’ pairings showed greater overlap than expected by chance. However, only six combinations achieved satisfactory evidence of similarity. Conclusions: The moderate overlap between the groupings indicates some tendency to implicitly conceptualize BCT s in terms of the same theoretical domains. Understanding the nature of the overlap will aid the conceptualization of BCT s in terms of theory and application. Further research into different methods of developing a hierarchical taxonomic structure of BCT s for international, interdisciplinary work is now required. Statement of contribution: What is already known on this subject? Behaviour change interventions are effective in improving health care and health outcomes. The ‘active’ components of these interventions are behaviour change techniques and over 93 have been identified. Taxonomies of behaviour change techniques require structure to enable potential applications. What does this study add? This study identifies groups of BCT s to aid the recall of BCT s for intervention coding and design. It compares two methods of grouping – ‘bottom‐up’ and theory‐based ‘top‐down’ – and finds a moderate overlap. Building on identified BCT groups, it examines relationships between theoretical domains and BCT s.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study compared an inductive “bottom-up” hierarchical clustering of Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy v1 with a deductive “top-down” mapping of BCTs to the 14 Theoretical Domains Framework domains. It found moderate overlap between the two grouping methods, with only six of 208 bottom-up/top-down pairings showing comparatively high similarity.

Key findings

  • The bottom-up 16-group solution contained six splits, creating seven higher-order strategy groupings; the first split (height = 31.78) separated BCTs relating to “Scheduled consequences” and “Reward and Threat,” while later splits had heights <10, indicating less distinct groupings.
  • In the top-down closed-sort task, 59 of 87 BCTs (68%) were reliably allocated to 12 of 14 TDF domains, with a further 12 BCTs (14%) of borderline significance; two domains, “Social/Professional Role and Identity” and “Memory, Attention and Decision Processes,” had no BCTs significantly assigned. The domains with the most reliably allocated BCTs were Reinforcement (17), Beliefs about Consequences (10), and Social Influences (10).
  • Comparing groupings, 34 of 208 bottom-up × top-down pairings showed greater overlap than expected by chance; only six achieved Pearson’s residual values >5: Repetition and Substitution–Skills (6.66), Goals and Planning–Goals (6.41), Covert Learning–Beliefs about Consequences (5.76), Self-Belief–Beliefs about Capabilities (5.70), Scheduled Consequences–Reinforcement (5.22), and Antecedents–Environmental Context and Resources (5.20).
  • Of the 24 most commonly occurring BCTs, 18 (75%) were reliably mapped to seven theory domains, with two further BCTs (8%) of borderline significance; six commonly identified BCTs were not mapped to any theoretical domain.

Methods

  • The bottom-up structure was examined using the dendrogram derived from hierarchical cluster analysis of an open-sort task completed by 18 behaviour change experts who grouped BCTs by similar active ingredients.
  • For the top-down structure, 18 eligible experts (72% of 25 invited) completed a closed-sort task, allocating 87 BCTs to one or more of the 14 refined TDF domains and giving confidence ratings; there was no participant overlap between the two sort tasks.
  • Analysis used Discriminant Content Validity with one-sample t-tests and Hochberg correction, intraclass correlation coefficients, and chi-square tests with Monte Carlo simulation and Pearson’s residuals to compare bottom-up and top-down groupings.

Limitations

  • The paper states that experts’ judgements may be influenced by specific theoretical approaches or cues from particular words, especially theories with a longer history; it notes this was mitigated by avoiding the word “theory” in the open-sort instructions and by aggregating responses across participants.
  • The paper states that further work is needed to evaluate the replicability and utility of the groupings, and that different groupings may be useful for different tasks and users.
  • Evident from the text: the closed-sort task used an earlier 87-item taxonomy and the open-sort task an even earlier 85-item version, whereas published BCT Taxonomy v1 contains 93 BCTs; the two expert samples differed significantly by gender and country of residence, and chi-square comparisons excluded two TDF domains that had no BCTs assigned.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjhp.12102

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 28 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    The final split occurs at split 6 (height = 4.18), where Self-Belief, Comparison of Outcome, and Identity are separated from Shaping Knowledge and Regulation.

    “The final split occurs at split 6 (height = 4.18), where the groupings 'Self-Belief', 'Comparison of Outcome', and 'Identity' (BCTs relating to the self and identity) are separated from the groupings of 'Shaping Knowledge' and 'Regulation' (BCTs relating to knowledge and regulation).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The first split at height 31.78 divided the body of BCTs into two groups: Scheduled consequences and Reward and Threat.

    “The first split is at 'split 1' (height = 31.78),where the body of BCTs split into two groups, the grouping to the left containing the groupings of 'Scheduled consequences' and 'Reward and Threat' that involve BCTs relating to the anticipation of a direct reward or punishment (e.g., social reward, negative reinforcement, extinction).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    At split 3 (height = 9.56), BCTs from Covert Learning and Natural Consequences are separated off from the remaining groupings.

    “At split 3 (height = 9.56), BCTs from the groupings 'Covert Learning' and 'Natural Consequences' are separated off from the remaining groupings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Within the reported 16-group open-sort solution, there are six points at which groups of BCTs split into groups containing similar BCTs, creating seven higher-order strategy groupings.

    “Within the reported 16-group open-sort solution of the taxonomy, there are six points at which groups of BCTs split into groups containing similar BCTs (creating seven split groups, that is, higher-order strategy groupings; see Figure 1 and Table S1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    From split 3 onwards, the distance between the groupings is markedly smaller (height <10).

    “From split 3 onwards, the distance between the groupings is markedly smaller (height <10), indicating that the groupings formed are less distinct from each other.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 21
  • May combine two claims. 13

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

    Findingown data

    At split 4 (height = 7.69), the split includes Feedback and Monitoring, and Goals and Planning and BCTs relating to goals, planning and feedback.

    “At split 4 (height = 7.69), the split includes the groupings 'Feedback and Monitoring', and 'Goals and Planning' and BCTs relating to goals, planning and feedback.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    At split 5 (height = 5.55), the split includes Social Support and Comparison of Behaviour and BCTs related to social factors.

    “At split 5 (height = 5.55), the split includes the groupings 'Social Support' and 'Comparison of Behaviour' and BCTs related to social factors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    'Behavioural regulation' had only one assigned BCT but achieved good agreement.

    “'Behavioural regulation' had only one assigned BCT but achieved good agreement”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    The number of female and male participants differed significantly between the two sort tasks.

    “the number of female and male participants did, vfoot_2 (1) = 4.33, p < .05”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The first cluster mainly reflects BCTs associated with learning theory, as do those in the third cluster.

    “For instance, the first cluster mainly reflects BCTs associated with learning theory, as do those in the third cluster.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Six combinations achieved Pearson's residual values >5: Repetition and Substitution and Skills (6.66), Goals and Planning and Goals (6.41), Covert Learning and Beliefs about Consequences (5.76), Self-Belief and Beliefs about Capabilities (5.70), Scheduled Consequences and Reinforcement (5.22), and Antecedents and Environmental Context and Resources (5.20).

    “Six combinations achieved Pearson's residual values >5, indicating a comparatively high level of overlap; these combinations were 'Repetition and Substitution' and 'Skills' (Pearson's residual = 6.66), 'Goals and Planning' and 'Goals' (Pearson's residual = 6.41), 'Covert Learning' and 'Beliefs about 'Consequences' (Pearson's residual = 5.76), 'Self-Belief' and 'Beliefs about Capabilities' (Pearson”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    Participants for the closed-sort task reported moderately high levels of expertise in behaviour change theory (M = 3.17, SD = 0.71) and in delivering behaviour change interventions (M = 2.17, SD = 1.38).

    “Participants for the closed-sort task reported moderately high levels of expertise in behaviour change theory (M = 3.17, SD = 0.71) and in delivering behaviour change interventions (M = 2.17, SD = 1.38) as measured on 5-point scales (scores are reversed so higher score indicates more experience).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    The age of participants did not differ significantly between the two sort tasks.

    “Whilst the age of participants did not differ significantly between the two sort tasks, t(34) = 0.77, p > .1”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Two domains, Social/Professional Role and Identity and Memory, Attention and Decision Processes, had no BCTs significantly assigned to them.

    “Two domains, 'Social/Professional Role and Identity' and 'Memory, Attention and Decision Processes' had no BCTs significantly assigned to them.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    The country of residence of participants differed significantly between the two sort tasks.

    “as did the country of residence (v 2 = 20.76 p < .001) 2 .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    All TDF domains had BCTs allocated to them in the closed-sort task, with the number of BCTs allocated ranging from 15 for Social/Professional Role and Identity to 68 for Behavioural Regulation.

    “All TDF domains had BCTs allocated to them in the closed-sort task, with the number of BCTs allocated ranging from 15 for Social/Professional Role and Identity to 68 for Behavioural Regulation (see Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The three domains 'Beliefs about Consequences', 'Reinforcement', and 'Social Influences' had high confidence ratings and ICCs.

    “which also had high confidence ratings and ICCs”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    BCT Taxonomy v1 comprises 93 BCTs that were evaluated for conformity to a BCT definition, clarity as individual BCTs, and distinctiveness.

    “It comprises 93 BCTs (see Appendix S1 for the version used in the present study) which have been evaluated on (1) whether they conformed to a definition of a BCT, (2) their clarity as an individual BCT, and (3) their distinctiveness (i.e., whether there was any overlap and redundancy with other BCTs).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Michie et al., 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The TDF is an integrative framework of theories of behaviour change.

    “The TDF is an integrative framework of theories of behaviour change that was originally developed by 18 psychological theorists in collaboration with 16 health service researchers and 30 health psychologists (Michie et al., 2005).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Michie et al., 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    BCT Taxonomy v1 is a hierarchically grouped, consensus-based taxonomy of 93 BCTs for reporting intervention content.

    “Behaviour change technique (BCT) Taxonomy v1 is a hierarchically grouped, consensus-based taxonomy of 93 BCTs for reporting intervention content.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Michie et al., 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Michie, Johnston, et al., 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    The TDF has been used by research teams across several countries and health care systems to investigate implementation problems and inform interventions to change professional practice.

    “The TDF has been used by research teams across several countries and health care systems to investigate implementation problems and inform interventions to change professional practice (see Amemori, Korhonen, Kinnunen, Michie, & Murtomaa, 2011;Beenstock et al., 2012;Bussi eres, Patey, Francis, Sales, & Grimshaw, 2012;Dyson, Lawton, Jackson, & Cheater, 2011;Francis, Stockton, et al., 2009;Francis,”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Amemori et al., 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Beenstock et al., 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bussi eres et al., 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Interpretationcitation

    There is a clear need for improving methods for applying theory to intervention design and understanding how BCTs exert their influences.

    “There is therefore a clear need for improving methods for applying theory to intervention design and our understanding of how BCTs exert their influences.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    These seven BCTs may have evolved from several different theoretical approaches and therefore may be less associated with a particular theoretical domain.

    “This finding suggests that these BCTs may have evolved from several different theoretical approaches and therefore may be less associated with a particular theoretical domain.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    The third cluster, labelled 'Repetition and Substitution', deals with the maintenance of behaviour change including maintenance in the face of competing behaviours.

    “whilst the third cluster (labelled as 'Repetition and Substitution') deals with the maintenance of behaviour change including maintenance in the face of competing behaviours.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The use of the word 'theory' was avoided in the open-sort task instructions to prevent priming the use of theory to sort BCTs.

    “First, the use of the word 'theory' was avoided in the open-sort task instructions to prevent priming the use of theory to sort BCTs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Experts' judgements are likely influenced by specific theoretical approaches or cues from particular words, especially those associated with theories that have a longer history.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Individual groupings of BCTs defined by each expert held equal weight within the final solution and were aggregated using empirical techniques (HCA in the bottom-up sort task and Discriminant Content Validity methods in the top-down sort task).

    “First, individual groupings of BCTs defined by each expert held equal weight within the final solution and were aggregated using empirical techniques (HCA in the 'bottom-up' sort task and Discriminant Content Validity methods in the 'top-down' sort task).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The approach is less prone to bias from individual responses and therefore provides a more balanced view of how experts, as a whole, conceptualize BCTs.

    “Such an approach is less prone to bias from individual responses and therefore provides a more balanced view of how experts, as a whole, conceptualize BCTs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Experts' judgements are likely influenced by specific theoretical approaches or cues from particular words, especially those associated with theories that have a longer history.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Hochberg's correction was used to control for the family-wise error rate given the large number of tests used.

    “This was used to control for the family-wise error rate given the large number of tests used and provided a suitable criterion for inclusion and exclusion of BCTs to a particular domain, over and above the use of a subjective cut-off value.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hochberg, 1988

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    The first cluster reflects BCTs that initiate behaviour change by 'scheduling consequences'.

    “with the first cluster reflecting BCTs that initiate behaviour change by 'scheduling consequences'”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    BCTs were considered to be reliably allocated to a domain if their mean confidence ratings were significantly greater than zero (p < .05) after Hochberg's correction.

    “Behaviour change techniques were considered to be reliably allocated to a domain if their mean confidence ratings were significantly greater than zero (p < .05)after Hochberg's correction (Hochberg, 1988; applied using the p.adjust function in R [R Development Core Team, 2008]).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hochberg, 1988

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The clustering may not only reflect current explicit theorizing but also indicate where developments are being made.

    “Thus, the clustering may not only reflect current explicit theorizing but also indicate where developments are being made.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Monte Carlo simulation (using 2000 replications) was used to adjust for potential inaccuracy of the p-value estimation resulting from the number of cells that had expected frequencies <1.

    “To adjust for potential inaccuracy of the p-value estimation (resulting from the number of cells that had expected frequencies <1), Monte Carlo simulation (using 2000 replications) was used.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    The clusters developed through the 'bottom-up' sort task suggest theoretical thinking.

    “The clusters developed through the 'bottom-up' sort task suggest theoretical thinking.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    There was no overlap in participants between the bottom-up and top-down sort tasks.

    “There was no overlap in participants between the 'bottom-up' and 'top-down' sort tasks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    The sample size for the closed-sort task was based on estimates given for content-validation exercises, with two to 24 participants being shown to be sufficient and more than five participants reducing the influence of rater outliers.

    “The sample size for the closed-sort task was based on estimates given for content-validation exercises, with two to 24 participants being shown to be sufficient (see Dixon, Johnston, McQueen, & Court-Brown, 2008;Dixon, Pollard, & Johnston, 2007;Lynn, 1986;Waltz, Strickland, & Lenz, 1991) and more than five participants reducing the influence of rater outliers (Carmines & Zeller, 1979).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Dixon et al., 2008

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Lynn, 1986

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Carmines & Zeller, 1979

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The agreement of BCT allocation across participants was analysed using a two-way intraclass correlation coefficient within each domain.

    “The agreement of BCT allocation across participants was analysed using a two-way intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) within each domain.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
31 of 31

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 18 experts in the closed-sort task are sufficiently representative of behaviour change experts for their allocations to reflect the broader expert community.

    “Eighteen people (72%) met the eligibility criteria and all who were eligible consented to complete the task (see Table 1 for demographic information).”
    “Participants were eligible to take part if they had (1) experience in designing interventions that specifically used BCTs, (2) experience in writing manuals or protocols of behaviour change interventions, or (3) undertaken a narrative or systematic review of behaviour change literature.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The experts' groupings and confidence ratings reflect the underlying conceptual structure of BCTs and theoretical domains rather than idiosyncratic preferences.

    “Participants were asked to sort the list of BCTs into groups (up to a maximum of 24) of their choice and label the groups.”
    “Participants were asked to allocate each of the 87 BCTs to one or more of the 14 theoretical domain(s), giving a confidence rating for each allocation (from 1 = not at all confident to 10 = extremely confident).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Experts' judgements are likely influenced by specific theoretical approaches or cues from particular words, especially those associated with theories that have a longer history.

    “One potential limitation of the present study is that it is likely that experts' judgements are influenced by specific theoretical approachesor cues from particular wordsespecially those associated with theories that have a longer history.”
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?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentt(34) = 0.64reported p > .1 · recomputed p = .526

    “t(34) = 0.64, p > .1”

  • Consistentt(34) = 0.63reported p > .1 · recomputed p = .533

    “t(34) = 0.63, p > .1”

  • Consistentt(34) = 0.77reported p > .1 · recomputed p = .447

    “t(34) = 0.77, p > .1”

3 of 3

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.

  • Discussion changes the number of reliably allocated BCTs

    Major

    The discussion reports 69 reliably allocated BCTs, whereas the abstract reports 59, including 12 of borderline significance. This changes the reported extent of successful mapping.

  • Results add 12 borderline BCTs to a total that already includes them

    Major

    The results describe 59 reliably allocated BCTs plus a further 12 borderline BCTs. The abstract instead identifies 59 as the total comprising 47 significant and 12 borderline BCTs.

  • Three domain counts disagree with Table 2

    Minor

    The results give six qualifying BCTs for Goals and Environmental Context and Resources and five for Emotion. Table 2 gives five, five, and four, respectively.

  • Number of frequently used BCTs reliably mapped changes

    Minor

    The results state that 18 of the 24 most common BCTs were reliably mapped, but the discussion says 17 were clearly grouped.

  • Habit formation confidence interval is not centered on its mean

    Minor

    The reported confidence interval has a midpoint of 3.725, not the reported mean of 4.33. A two-sided confidence interval from the stated one-sample t-test would be centered on the mean.

    Reported 4.33 · recomputed 3.725

5 of 5

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 10.1080/17437199.2012.654964 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Michie S., 2013, Encyclopaedia of behavioral medicine, 182

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cane, J., Richardson, M., Johnston, M., Ladha, R., & Michie, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Kent (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Cane, James
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of Health Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-05-12
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
130-150
ISSN
  • 1359-107X (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8287
DOI
10.1111/bjhp.12102
OpenAlex
W1973291291
Semantic Scholar
2073cbc177dda37162e6a9e5d82ddda9903ceca1
Cited by
376
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 3
FWCI
30.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • British Journal of Health Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Create (Canterbury Christ Church University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council Health Service Research Collaboration (G0901474)
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, Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy, Theoretical Domains Framework, reward and punishment
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Australia, Behavior Therapy, Cues, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Italy, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, New Zealand, Reward, United States, Health Behavior, Cluster Analysis, Young Adult

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