Cited by 24Health Policy Implementation ScienceOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchBehavioral Health and Interventions

Specifying content and mechanisms of change in interventions to change professionals’ practice: an illustration from the Good Goals study in occupational therapy

Open access
Kolehmainen, Niina, Francis, Jill J·2012·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is widely agreed that interventions to change professionals' practice need to be clearly specified. This involves (1) selecting and defining the intervention techniques, (2) operationalising the techniques and deciding their delivery, and (3) formulating hypotheses about the mechanisms through which the techniques are thought to result in change. Descriptions of methods to achieve these objectives are limited. This paper reports methods and illustrates outputs from a study to meet these objectives, specifically from the Good Goals study to improve occupational therapists' caseload management practice. METHODS: (1) Behaviour change techniques were identified and selected from an existing matrix that maps techniques to determinants. An existing coding manual was used to define the techniques. (2) A team of occupational therapists generated context-relevant, acceptable modes of delivery for the techniques; these data were compared and contrasted with previously collected data, literature on caseload management, and the aims of the intervention. (3) Hypotheses about the mechanisms of change were formulated by drawing on the matrix and on theories of behaviour change. RESULTS: (1) Eight behaviour change techniques were selected: goal specified; self-monitoring; contract; graded tasks; increasing skills (problem solving, decision making, goal setting); coping skills; rehearsal of relevant skills; social processes of encouragement, support, and pressure; demonstration by others; and feedback. (2) A range of modes of delivery were generated (e.g., graded tasks' consisting of series of clinical cases and situations that become increasingly difficult). Conditions for acceptable delivery were identified (e.g., 'self-monitoring' was acceptable only if delivered at team level). The modes of delivery were specified as face-to-face training, task sheets, group tasks, DVDs, and team-based weekly meetings. (3) The eight techniques were hypothesized to target caseload management practice through eleven mediating variables. Three domains were hypothesized to be most likely to change: beliefs about capabilities, motivation and goals, and behavioural regulation. CONCLUSIONS: The project provides an exemplar of a systematic and reportable development of a quality-improvement intervention, with its methods likely to be applicable to other projects. A subsequent study of the intervention has provided early indication that use of systematic methods to specify interventions may help to maximize acceptability and effectiveness.

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 · 10.1186/1748-5908-7-100

Cites

45 of 45 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?

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

2 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kolehmainen, N., & Francis, J. J.
Affiliations
University of Aberdeen (GB)
Corresponding author
Kolehmainen, Niina
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2012-10-18
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
100-100
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2135242270
Cited by
24
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Funders
  • McMaster University
  • University of Aberdeen
  • University of Stirling
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Therapy Practice and Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
behaviour change techniques, mechanisms of change, occupational therapy, caseload management, professional practice change, self-monitoring, goal setting, feedback, coping strategies, behavioral regulation, quality improvement intervention, intervention delivery mode, mediators
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Decision Making, Goals, Humans, Learning, Occupational Therapy, Professional Practice, Psychological Theory, Social Environment, Case Management, Translational Research, Biomedical, Quality Improvement

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