Cited by 72Health Policy Implementation ScienceBehavioral Health and InterventionsClinical practice guidelines implementation

Development of a behaviour change intervention: a case study on the practical application of theory

Open access
Porcheret, Mark, Main, Chris, Croft, Peter, McKinley, Robert, Hassell, Andrew, Dziedzic, Krysia·2014·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Use of theory in implementation of complex interventions is widely recommended. A complex trial intervention, to enhance self-management support for people with osteoarthritis (OA) in primary care, needed to be implemented in the Managing Osteoarthritis in Consultations (MOSAICS) trial. One component of the trial intervention was delivery by general practitioners (GPs) of an enhanced consultation for patients with OA. The aim of our case study is to describe the systematic selection and use of theory to develop a behaviour change intervention to implement GP delivery of the enhanced consultation. METHODS: The development of the behaviour change intervention was guided by four theoretical models/frameworks: i) an implementation of change model to guide overall approach, ii) the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify relevant determinants of change, iii) a model for the selection of behaviour change techniques to address identified determinants of behaviour change, and iv) the principles of adult learning. Methods and measures to evaluate impact of the behaviour change intervention were identified. RESULTS: The behaviour change intervention presented the GPs with a well-defined proposal for change; addressed seven of the TDF domains (e.g., knowledge, skills, motivation and goals); incorporated ten behaviour change techniques (e.g., information provision, skills rehearsal, persuasive communication); and was delivered in workshops that valued the expertise and professional values of GPs. The workshops used a mixture of interactive and didactic sessions, were facilitated by opinion leaders, and utilised 'context-bound communication skills training.' Methods and measures selected to evaluate the behaviour change intervention included: appraisal of satisfaction with workshops, GP report of intention to practise and an assessment of video-recorded consultations of GPs with patients with OA. CONCLUSIONS: A stepped approach to the development of a behaviour change intervention, with the utilisation of theoretical frameworks to identify determinants of change matched with behaviour change techniques, has enabled a systematic and theory-driven development of an intervention designed to enhance consultations by GPs for patients with OA. The success of the behaviour change intervention in practice will be evaluated in the context of the MOSAICS trial as a whole, and will inform understanding of practice level and patient outcomes in the trial.

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 · 10.1186/1748-5908-9-42

Cites

46 of 46 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Porcheret, M., Main, C., Croft, P., McKinley, R., Hassell, A., & Dziedzic, K.
Affiliations
Keele University (GB)
Corresponding author
Porcheret, Mark
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2014-04-03
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
42-42
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1997648943
Cited by
72
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 6
FWCI
16.86
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)
  • Keele Research Repository (Keele University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0509-10183, IAT08/I-PF/011, 2008 IPF PORCHERET, WMCLAHRC-2014-1, RP-PG-0407-10386)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
behaviour change interventions, osteoarthritis, general practitioners, self-management support, Theoretical Domains Framework, behaviour change techniques, adult learning, opinion leaders, intervention development, primary care
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Osteoarthritis, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Self Care, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Guideline Adherence

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