PRIME – PRocess modelling in ImpleMEntation research: selecting a theoretical basis for interventions to change clinical practice
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Biomedical research constantly produces new findings but these are not routinely translated into health care practice. One way to address this problem is to develop effective interventions to translate research findings into practice. Currently a range of empirical interventions are available and systematic reviews of these have demonstrated that there is no single best intervention. This evidence base is difficult to use in routine settings because it cannot identify which intervention is most likely to be effective (or cost effective) in a particular situation. We need to establish a scientific rationale for interventions. As clinical practice is a form of human behaviour, theories of human behaviour that have proved useful in other similar settings may provide a basis for developing a scientific rationale for the choice of interventions to translate research findings into clinical practice. The objectives of the study are: to amplify and populate scientifically validated theories of behaviour with evidence from the experience of health professionals; to use this as a basis for developing predictive questionnaires using replicable methods; to identify which elements of the questionnaire (i.e., which theoretical constructs) predict clinical practice and distinguish between evidence compliant and non-compliant practice; and on the basis of these results, to identify variables (based on theoretical constructs) that might be prime targets for behaviour change interventions. METHODS: We will develop postal questionnaires measuring two motivational, three action and one stage theory to explore five behaviours with 800 general medical and 600 general dental practitioners. We will collect data on performance for each of the behaviours. The relationships between predictor variables (theoretical constructs) and outcome measures (data on performance) in each survey will be assessed using multiple regression analysis and structural equation modelling. In the final phase of the project, the findings from all surveys will be analysed simultaneously adopting a random effects approach to investigate whether the relationships between predictor variables and outcome measures are modified by behaviour, professional group or geographical location.
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
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 an experimental study, concurrent formative evaluation can supply working hypotheses that explain why implementation succeeded or failed, especially when implementation and evaluation plans are based on a conceptual framework.
“However, within an experimental study, in-depth data from a concurrent FE can provide working hypotheses to explain successes or failures, particularly when the implementation and evaluation plans are grounded in a conceptual framework.[55][56][57]”
From The role of formative evaluation in implementation research and the QUERI experience (2006) · cites this paper as [57]
Much of the work examining health practitioner behaviour change has, to date, been largely atheoretical.
“However, much of the work examining health practitioner behaviour change has, to date, been largely atheoretical [11-14].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 71 · Cited by 133
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Iles V Sutherland K Organisational change: a review for health care managers and professionals and researchers London National Coordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R & D 2001
- Kanfer FH Goldstein AP ed Helping people change: a textbook of methods New York: Pergamon Press 1986
- Johnston M Wright S Weinman J Measures in health psychology: a users portfolio Oxford: NFER-Nelson 1995
- Conner M Norman P Eds Predicting Health Behaviour Buckingham: Open University Press 1996
- Authors
- Walker, A. E., Grimshaw, J., Johnston, M., Pitts, N., Steen, N., & Eccles, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Aberdeen (GB)
- University of Dundee (GB)
- Newcastle University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Walker, Anne E
- Grimshaw, Jeremy
- Johnston, Marie
- Pitts, Nigel
- Steen, Nick
- Eccles, Martin
- Venue
- BMC Health Services Research
- Published
- 2003-12-19
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 22-22
- ISSN
- 1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC317340
- OpenAlex
- W2105547887
- Cited by
- 133
- References
- 71
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 15.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
- Funders
- Medical Research Council
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Keywords
- implementation research, behaviour change interventions, clinical practice change, research translation, motivation theories, philosophy of action, stage theory, general practitioners, general dentists, health professionals' practices
- MeSH terms
- Dentistry, Dentists, Diffusion of Innovation, Geography, United Kingdom, Health Plan Implementation, Humans, Models, Psychological, Motivation, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Physicians, Family, Psychological Theory, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis, State Medicine, Evidence-Based Medicine, Guideline Adherence, Biomedical 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