The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? Is it desirable?
Abstract
Background: In recognising the potential value of theory in understanding how interventions work comes a challenge – how to make identification of theory less haphazard? Objectives: To explore the feasibility of systematic identification of theory. Method: We searched PubMed for published reviews (1998–2012) that had explicitly sought to identify theory. Systematic searching may be characterised by a structured question, methodological filters and an itemised search procedure. We constructed a template (BeHEMoTh – Behaviour of interest; Health context; Exclusions; Models or Theories) for use when systematically identifying theory. The authors tested the template within two systematic reviews. Results: Of 34 systematic reviews, only 12 reviews (35%) reported a method for identifying theory. Nineteen did not specify how they identified studies containing theory. Data were unavailable for three reviews. Candidate terms include concept(s)/conceptual, framework(s), model(s), and theory/theories/theoretical. Information professionals must overcome inadequate reporting and the use of theory out of context. The review team faces an additional concern in lack of ‘theory fidelity’. Conclusions: Based on experience with two systematic reviews, the BeHEMoTh template and procedure offers a feasible and useful approach for identification of theory. Applications include realist synthesis, framework synthesis or review of complex interventions. The procedure requires rigorous evaluation.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“To develop a more systematic approach to searching this subject area, we employed a new, iterative approach called the BeHEMoTh (Behavior of interest; Health context; Exclusions; Models or Theories) framework [24] to inform our search protocol and to build a list of names of KT theories, models and frameworks.”
From Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks with limited use (2018) · cites this paper as [24]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 · Cited by 43,925
Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice
(1992) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-116-4-350_1 · Cited by 13,232
Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance
Craig, P., Dieppe, P., Macintyre, S., Michie, S., Nazareth, I., & Petticrew, M. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a1655 · Cited by 10,995
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1978) · Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/0146-6402(78)90002-4 · Cited by 10,586
Webb, T. L., Joseph, J., Yardley, L., & Michie, S. (2010) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1376 · Cited by 2,517
Glanz, K., & Bishop, D. B. (2010) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103604 · Cited by 2,336
Why People Use Health Services
Rosenstock, I. M. (2005) · Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00425.x · Cited by 2,329
Why People Use Health Services
Rosenstock, I. M. (1966) · The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3348967 · Cited by 2,305
THEORY AT A GLANCE: A GUIDE FOR HEALTH PROMOTION PRACTICE
Croyle, R. T. (2005) · Cited by 1,396
An Introduction to Systematic Reviews
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017) · doi:10.4135/9781036234942 · Cited by 1,239
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Fishwick D. McGregor M. Drury M. Webster J. Rick J. Carroll C.&Powell S.BOHRF smoking cessation review. HuSU/12/17. Buxton: Health & Safety Laboratory;2012. [http://www.bohrf.org.uk/downloads/BOHRF_Smoking_Cessation_Review-April%202012.pdf]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements
Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/hir.12276 · Cited by 570
Self-citationCooper, C., Booth, A., Varley-Campbell, J., Britten, N., & Garside, R. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0545-3 · Cited by 561
Self-citationBooth, A. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x · Cited by 542
Self-citationStrifler, L., Cardoso, R., McGowan, J., Cogo, E., Nincic, V., Khan, P. A., Scott, A., Ghassemi, M., MacDonald, H., Lai, Y., et al. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.04.008 · Cited by 227
Building Realist Program Theory for Large Complex and Messy Interventions
Shearn, K., Allmark, P., Piercy, H., & Hirst, J. (2017) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/1609406917741796 · Cited by 215
Metadata
- Authors
- Booth, A., & Carroll, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Sheffield (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Booth, Andrew
- Venue
- Health Information & Libraries Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-06-11
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 220-235
- ISSN
- 1471-1834 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-1842
- OpenAlex
- W1935977214
- Cited by
- 196
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 1.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Health Information & Libraries Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
- Keywords
- systematic reviews, search strategy design, realist synthesis, framework synthesis, complex interventions, reporting quality
- MeSH terms
- Abstracting and Indexing, Humans, Review Literature as Topic, Databases, Bibliographic, Information Storage and Retrieval
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
