Cited by 481Delphi Technique in ResearchHealth Policy Implementation ScienceMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Guidance for reporting intervention development studies in health research (GUIDED): an evidence-based consensus study.

Open access
Duncan, Edward, O'Cathain, Alicia, Rousseau, Nikki, Croot, Liz, Sworn, Katie, Turner, Katrina M, Yardley, Lucy, Hoddinott, Pat·2020·BMJ Open

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To improve the quality and consistency of intervention development reporting in health research. DESIGN: This was a consensus exercise consisting of two simultaneous and identical three-round e-Delphi studies (one with experts in intervention development and one with wider stakeholders including funders, journal editors and public involvement members), followed by a consensus workshop. Delphi items were systematically derived from two preceding systematic reviews and a qualitative interview study. PARTICIPANTS: Intervention developers (n=26) and wider stakeholders (n=18) from the UK, North America and Europe participated in separate e-Delphi studies. Intervention developers (n=13) and wider stakeholders (n=13) participated in a 1-day consensus workshop. RESULTS: e-Delphi participants achieved consensus on 15 reporting items. Following feedback from the consensus meeting, the final inclusion and wording of 14 items with description and explanations for each item were agreed. Items focus on context, purpose, target population, approaches, evidence, theory, guiding principles, stakeholder contribution, changes in content or format during the development process, required changes for subgroups, continuing uncertainties, and open access publication. They form the GUIDED (GUIDance for the rEporting of intervention Development) checklist, which contains a description and explanation of each item, alongside examples of good reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus-based reporting guidance for intervention development in health research is now available for publishers and researchers to use. GUIDED has the potential to lead to greater transparency, and enhance quality and improve learning about intervention development research and practice.

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033516

Cites

42 of 42 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 actual development process of interventions in psychotherapy is often kept short and under-reported.

    “However, the actual development process of interventions in psychotherapy is often kept short and under-reported (29).”

    From Developing a mechanism-based therapy for acute psychiatric inpatients with psychotic symptoms: an Intervention Mapping approach (2023) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Background (page not provided) says intervention development processes are under-reported and that published accounts can give sparse detail about how an intervention was developed. It discusses health interventions generally, not how often this occurs specifically in psychotherapy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Duncan, E., O'Cathain, A., Rousseau, N., Croot, L., Sworn, K., Turner, K. M., Yardley, L., & Hoddinott, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Stirling (GB)
  • School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Duncan, Edward
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2020-04
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
e033516
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3010677662
Cited by
481
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 87 · 2025: 85 · 2024: 93 · 2023: 77 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 1
FWCI
71.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council (MR/N015339/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
intervention development, reporting guidelines, reporting quality, stakeholder engagement, e-Delphi consensus, open access publications
MeSH terms
Stakeholder Participation, Delphi Technique, Europe, United Kingdom, Humans, North America, Consensus, Checklist, Research Report

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