Using intervention mapping to develop and adapt a secondary stroke prevention program in Veterans Health Administration medical centers
Open accessAbstract
Secondary stroke prevention is championed by the stroke guidelines; however, it is rarely systematically delivered. We sought to develop a locally tailored, evidence-based secondary stroke prevention program. The purpose of this paper was to apply intervention mapping (IM) to develop our locally tailored stroke prevention program and implementation plan. We completed a needs assessment and the five Steps of IM. The needs assessment included semi-structured interviews of 45 providers; 26 in Indianapolis and 19 in Houston. We queried frontline clinical providers of stroke care using structured interviews on the following topics: current provider practices in secondary stroke risk factor management; barriers and needs to support risk factor management; and suggestions on how to enhance secondary stroke risk factor management throughout the continuum of care. We then describe how we incorporated each of the five Steps of IM to develop locally tailored programs at two sites that will be evaluated through surveys for patient outcomes, and medical records chart abstraction for processes of care.
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?
Eleven of the 15 included papers incorporated other approaches, tools, or resources as a component of the intervention design process.
“Eleven of the 15 papers incorporated other approaches, tools, or resources as a component of the intervention design process [14, 19–28].”
From Methods for designing interventions to change healthcare professionals’ behaviour: a systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as [27]
Six of the 15 papers used the structured interview processes outlined in the Theoretical Domains Framework or in Intervention Mapping.
“Six papers used the structured interview processes outlined in the TDF [19, 21, 25] or in Intervention Mapping [20, 26, 27].”
From Methods for designing interventions to change healthcare professionals’ behaviour: a systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as [27]
Five of the 15 included papers incorporated just one other published tool.
“Five of 15 incorporated just one other published tool [20, 24, 26–28]”
From Methods for designing interventions to change healthcare professionals’ behaviour: a systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as [27]
Four of the 15 included papers incorporated Intervention Mapping.
“Four of these [20, 23, 26, 27] incorporated Intervention Mapping [29]”
From Methods for designing interventions to change healthcare professionals’ behaviour: a systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as [27]
Among the papers that linked barriers to intervention components, methods included mapping TDF barriers to the BCT taxonomy and using the structured approaches described in Intervention Mapping.
“Methods to link barriers to intervention components included mapping TDF-barriers to the BCT taxonomy [19, 21, 25], as well as using the structured approaches described in Intervention Mapping [20, 26, 27].”
From Methods for designing interventions to change healthcare professionals’ behaviour: a systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as [27]
Four of the 15 methods papers for designing interventions to change HCPs' behaviour incorporated Intervention Mapping.
“However, we did find four methods papers for designing interventions to change HCPs’ behaviour that incorporated Intervention Mapping [20, 23, 26, 27].”
From Methods for designing interventions to change healthcare professionals’ behaviour: a systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as [27]
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 45 · Cited by 46
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Kok G Schaalma H Ruiter RAC Van Empelen P Brug J Intervention mapping: protocol for applying health psychology theory to prevention programmes Journal of Health Psychology 2004 9 85 10.1177/1359105304038379 14683571 · DOI
- Authors
- Schmid, A. A., Andersen, J., Kent, T., Williams, L. S., & Damush, T. M.
- Affiliations
- Regenstrief Institute (US)
- Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Schmid, Arlene A
- Venue
- Implementation Science
- Published
- 2010-12
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 97-97
- ISSN
- 1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3057184
- OpenAlex
- W2084488701
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Purdue University Indianapolis (Indiana University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
- Keywords
- secondary stroke prevention, intervention mapping, program development, program adaptation, needs assessment, barriers to care, continuum of care, veterans, Veterans Health Administration, implementation planning
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
