Cited by 119Health Policy Implementation ScienceBehavioral Health and InterventionsSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment

Characterising an implementation intervention in terms of behaviour change techniques and theory: the ‘Sepsis Six’ clinical care bundle

Open access
Steinmo, Siri, Fuller, Christopher, Stone, Sheldon P., Michie, Susan·2015·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a major cause of death from infection, with a mortality rate of 36 %. This can be halved by implementing the 'Sepsis Six' evidence-based care bundle within 1 h of presentation. A UK audit has shown that median implementation rates are 27-47 % and interventions to improve this have demonstrated minimal effects. In order to develop more effective implementation interventions, it is helpful to obtain detailed characterisations of current interventions and to draw on behavioural theory to identify mechanisms of change. The aim of this study was to illustrate this process by using the Behaviour Change Wheel; Behaviour Change Technique (BCT) Taxonomy; Capability, Opportunity, Motivation model of behaviour; and Theoretical Domains Framework to characterise the content and theoretical mechanisms of action of an existing intervention to implement Sepsis Six. METHODS: Data came from documentary, interview and observational analyses of intervention delivery in several wards of a UK hospital. A broad description of the intervention was created using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication framework. Content was specified in terms of (i) component BCTs using the BCT Taxonomy and (ii) intervention functions using the Behaviour Change Wheel. Mechanisms of action were specified using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation model and the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: The intervention consisted of 19 BCTs, with eight identified using all three data sources. The BCTs were delivered via seven functions of the Behaviour Change Wheel, with four ('education', 'enablement', 'training' and 'environmental restructuring') supported by the three data sources. The most frequent mechanisms of action were reflective motivation (especially 'beliefs about consequences' and 'beliefs about capabilities') and psychological capability (especially 'knowledge'). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention consisted of a wide range of BCTs targeting a wide range of mechanisms of action. This study demonstrates the utility of the Behaviour Change Wheel, the BCT Taxonomy and the Theoretical Domains Framework, tools recognised for providing guidance for intervention design, for characterising an existing intervention to implement evidence-based 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13012-015-0300-7

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • Distinctions between strategies used to support implementation and strategies used to integrate screening EBIs into practice are important when selecting and reporting strategies because the evidence base and underlying theory differ for these two types.

    “We contend that these distinctions are important when selecting and reporting strategies for use in research and practice because the evidence base and, to a large extent, the underlying theory, differ for strategies used to support implementation (e.g., [6, 7]) as compared to strategies used to integrate screening EBIs into practice (e.g., [8, 9]).”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [8]Dellinger RP Levy MM Rhodes A Annane D Gerlach H Opal SM Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012 Crit Care Med 2012 41 2 580 637 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31827e83af 23353941 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Steinmo, S., Fuller, C., Stone, S. P., & Michie, S.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Steinmo, Siri
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2015-08-08
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
111-111
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1935719333
Cited by
119
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1
FWCI
17.03
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)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
Sepsis Six, sepsis, implementation strategies, behaviour change techniques, Behaviour Change Wheel, BCT taxonomy, Theoretical Domains Framework, mechanisms of change, evidence-based care, hospital wards, sepsis mortality
MeSH terms
Humans, Motivation, Organizational Innovation, Personnel, Hospital, Psychological Theory, Program Development, Sepsis, Patient Care Bundles

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