Cited by 1,789Behavioral Health and InterventionsBehavioral and Psychological StudiesHealth Policy Implementation Science

From theory to intervention: Mapping theoretically derived behavioural determinants to behaviour change techniques

Open access
Michie, Susan, Johnston, Marie, Francis, Jill, Hardeman, Wendy, Eccles, Martin·2008·Applied Psychology

Abstract

Theory provides a helpful basis for designing interventions to change behaviour but offers little guidance on how to do this. This paper aims to illustrate methods for developing an extensive list of behaviour change techniques (with definitions) and for linking techniques to theoretical constructs. A list of techniques and definitions was generated from techniques published in two systematic reviews, supplemented by “brainstorming” and a systematic search of nine textbooks used in training applied psychologists. Inter‐rater reliability of extracting the techniques and definitions from the textbooks was assessed. Four experts judged which techniques would be effective in changing 11 theoretical constructs associated with behaviour change. Thirty‐five techniques identified in the reviews were extended to 53 by brainstorming and to 137 by consulting textbooks. Agreement for the 53 definitions was 74.7 per cent (15.4% cells completed and 59.3% cells empty for both raters). Agreement about the link between the 35 techniques and theoretical constructs was 71.7 per cent of 385 judgments (12.2% agreement that effective and 59.5% agreement that not effective). This preliminary work demonstrates the possibility of developing a comprehensive, reliable taxonomy of techniques linked to theory. Further refinement is needed to eliminate redundancies, resolve uncertainties, and complete technique definitions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00341.x

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Michie, S., Johnston, M., Francis, J., Hardeman, W., & Eccles, M.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
Michie, Susan
Venue
Applied Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-07-08
Volume
57
Issue
4
Pages
660-680
ISSN
  • 0269-994X (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0597
OpenAlex
W2132237350
Cited by
1,789
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 83 · 2024: 110 · 2023: 117 · 2022: 171 · 2021: 159 · 2020: 209 · 2019: 114 · 2018: 121 · 2017: 116 · 2016: 105 · 2015: 109 · 2014: 82 · 2013: 75 · 2012: 68
FWCI
44.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/G007470/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
behaviour change techniques, behavioural determinants, behaviour change theory, intervention design, inter-rater reliability, theoretical constructs

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