Cited by 280Health Policy Implementation ScienceQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsBehavioral Health and Interventions

How can use of the Theoretical Domains Framework be optimized in qualitative research? A rapid systematic review

Open access
McGowan, Laura J., Powell, Rachael, French, David P.·2020·British Journal of Health Psychology

Abstract

Purpose: The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) is an integrative framework which can facilitate comprehensive assessment of behavioural determinants in qualitative studies. However, studies can become entirely deductive if they adhere rigidly to the provided guidance and may thus overlook important factors. This review identified the number of TDF‐related qualitative publications employing health care professional (HCP) or patient/public samples (stage 1) and investigated the specific methods used and impact on findings in research involving patient/public populations, with consideration of how TDF use could be optimized in such studies (stage 2). Methods: A rapid systematic review of TDF‐based qualitative studies was conducted. Studies were included in stage 1 that had (1) used qualitative methods of both data collection and analysis and (2) used the TDF to inform data collection and/or analysis. Stage 2 included studies from stage 1 that employed patient/public populations and explored influences of behaviour. These studies were coded for instances of TDF use with respect to data collection, analysis, and reporting of findings. Results: In stage 1, 186 TDF‐based qualitative studies were identified (HCP = 123; patient/public = 43; both = 20). Thirty‐eight of these were eligible for inclusion in stage 2. Many of these studies used the TDF in a highly structured way within data collection, and the majority used a deductive approach to analysis. Most studies presented findings confined to TDF domains, with no non‐TDF material presented. Conclusions: Rigid operationalization of the TDF in qualitative studies may result in determinants being overlooked. We propose recommendations for flexible use of the TDF in order to optimize its use in exploratory qualitative research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjhp.12437

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The qualitative analytic approach was informed by a review by McGowan and colleagues recommending flexible application of behaviour change theory in qualitative work.

    “The qualitative analytic approach was informed by a review undertaken by McGowan and colleagues [19], which recommends that behaviour change theory should be applied flexibly in qualitative work, to ensure that codes and prospective themes are not limited by the framework applied.”

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Arden, M. A., Drabble, S., O'Cathain, A., Hutchings, M., & Wildman, M. (2019). Adherence to medication in adults with Cystic Fibrosis: An investigation using objective adherence data and the Theoretical Domains Framework. British Journal of Health Psychology, 24, 357-380. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12357 · DOI
  2. Burgess, C., Wright, A. J., Forster, A. S., Dodhia, H., Miller, J., Fuller, F., . . . Gulliford, M. C. (2015). Influences on individuals' decisions to take up the offer of a health check: A qualitative study. Health Expectations, 18, 2437-2448. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12212 · DOI
  3. Craig, P., Dieppe, P., Macintyre, S., Michie, S., Nazareth, I., Petticrew, M., . . . Medical Research Council Guidance (2008). Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 337, 979-983. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1655 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Cronin-de-Chavez, A., Islam, S., & McEachan, R. R. C. (2019). Not a level playing field: A qualitative study exploring structural, community and individual determinants of greenspace use amongst low-income multi-ethnic families. Health and Place, 56, 118-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hea lthplace.2019.01.018 · DOI
  5. Francis, J. J., O'Connor, D., & Curran, J. (2012). Theories of behaviour change synthesised into a set of theoretical groupings: Introducing a thematic series on the theoretical domains framework. Implementation Science, 7(1), 35.
  6. Haith-Cooper, M., Waskett, C., Montague, J., & Horne, M. (2018). Exercise and physical activity in asylum seekers in Northern England; using the theoretical domains framework to identify barriers and facilitators. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 762.
  7. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
  8. Herbec, A., Tombor, I., Shahab, L., & West, R. (2018). "If I'd Known . . ."-a theory-informed systematic analysis of missed opportunities in optimising use of nicotine replacement therapy and accessing relevant support: A qualitative study. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 579-591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-018-9735-y · DOI
  9. Kelly, S. E., Moher, D., & Clifford, T. J. (2016). Defining rapid reviews: A modified Delphi consensus approach. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 32, 265-275. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462316000489 · DOI
  10. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Layder, D., & (1993). New strategies in social research: An introduction and guide. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
  12. Martis, R., Brown, J., McAra-Couper, J., & Crowther, C. A. A. (2018). Enablers and barriers for women with gestational diabetes mellitus to achieve optimal glycaemic control -a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 18(1), 91. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s12884-018-1710-8 · DOI
  13. McBain, H., Begum, S., Rahman, S., & Mulligan, K. (2017). Barriers to and enablers of insulin self- titration in adults with Type 2 diabetes: A qualitative study. Diabetic Medicine, 34(2), 253-261.
  14. Mcdonald, S., O'Brien, N., White, M., & Sniehotta, F. (2015). Changes in physical activity during the retirement transition: A theory-based, qualitative interview study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-015- 0186-4 · DOI
  15. McGowan, L. J., Powell, R., & French, D. P. (2019). How acceptable is reducing sedentary behavior to older adults? Perceptions and experiences across diverse socioeconomic areas. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 27, 642-652. https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2018-0274 · DOI
  16. McGrath, C., Palmgren, P. J., & Liljedahl, M. (2019). Twelve tips for conducting qualitative research interviews. Medical Teacher, 41, 1002-1006. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018. 1497149 · DOI
  17. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  18. Namageyo-Funa, A., Rimando, M., Brace, A. M., Christiana, R. W., Fowles, T. L., Davis, T. L., . . . Sealy, D.-A. (2014). Recruitment in qualitative public health research: Lessons learned during dissertation sample recruitment. The qualitative report (Vol. 19). Retrieved from http://www. nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR19/namageyo-funa1.pdf
  19. Ormston, R., Spencer, L., Barnard, M., & Snape, D. (2014). The foundations of qualitative research. J. Ritchie J. Lewis C. McNaughton Nicholls & R. Ormston Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, 2nd ed, (pp. 2-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  20. Quigley, A., Baxter, L., Keeler, L., & MacKay-Lyons, M. (2019). Using the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and facilitators to exercise among older adults living with HIV. AIDS Care -Psychological and Socio-Medical Aspects of AIDS/HIV, 31, 163-168. https://doi. org/10.1080/09540121.2018.1499860 · DOI
  21. Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman & R. G. Burgess (EDs.), Analyzing qualitative data (pp. 173-194). London: Routledge.
  22. Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
  23. Rubinstein, H., Marcu, A., Yardley, L., & Michie, S. (2015). Public preferences for vaccination and antiviral medicines under different pandemic flu outbreak scenarios. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 190. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1541-8 · DOI
  24. Tricco, A. C., Antony, J., Zarin, W., Strifler, L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., . . . Straus, S. E. (2015). A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 224. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12916-015-0465-6 Received 7 January 2020; revised version received 9 May 2020 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McGowan, L. J., Powell, R., & French, D. P.
Affiliations
University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
McGowan, Laura J.
Venue
British Journal of Health Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-06-19
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
677-694
ISSN
  • 1359-107X (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8287
OpenAlex
W3036757896
Cited by
280
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 3
FWCI
6.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Health Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
  • Economic and Social Research Council
  • University of Manchester
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
Theoretical Domains Framework, behavioural determinants, qualitative research design, deductive analysis, patient and public involvement, healthcare workers, behaviour change interventions
MeSH terms
Health Personnel, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Qualitative Research

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.

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