Caroline E Wood

The Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy (v1) of 93 Hierarchically Clustered Techniques: Building an International Consensus for the Reporting of Behavior Change Interventions.

BackgroundCONSORT guidelines call for precise reporting of behavior change interventions: we need rigorous methods of characterizing active content of interventions with precision and specificity.ObjectivesThe objective of this study is to develop an extensive, consensually agreed hierarchically structured taxonomy of techniques [behavior change techniques (BCTs)] used in behavior change interventions.MethodsIn a Delphi-type exercise, 14 experts rated labels and definitions of 124 BCTs from six published classification systems. Another 18 experts grouped BCTs according to similarity of active ingredients in an open-sort task. Inter-rater agreement amongst six researchers coding 85 intervention descriptions by BCTs was assessed.ResultsThis resulted in 93 BCTs clustered into 16 groups. Of the 26 BCTs occurring at least five times, 23 had adjusted kappas of 0.60 or above.Conclusions“BCT taxonomy v1,” an extensive taxonomy of 93 consensually agreed, distinct BCTs, offers a step change as a method for specifying interventions, but we anticipate further development and evaluation based on international, interdisciplinary consensus.

Applying the behaviour change technique (BCT) taxonomy v1:a study of coder training

Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy v1 (BCTTv1) has been used to detect active ingredients of interventions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate effectiveness of user training in improving reliable, valid and confident application of BCTTv1 to code BCTs in intervention descriptions. One hundred sixty-one trainees (109 in workshops and 52 in group tutorials) were trained to code frequent BCTs. The following measures were taken before and after training: (i) inter-coder agreement, (ii) trainee agreement with expert consensus, (iii) confidence ratings and (iv) coding competence. Coding was assessed for 12 BCTs (workshops) and for 17 BCTs (tutorials). Trainees completed a course evaluation. Methods improved agreement with expert consensus (p < .05) but not inter-coder agreement (p = .08, p = .57, respectively) and increased confidence for BCTs assessed (both p < .05). Methods were as effective as one another at improving coding competence (p = .55). Training was evaluated positively. The training improved agreement with expert consensus, confidence for BCTs assessed, coding competence but not inter-coder agreement. This varied according to BCT.

Reporting behaviour change interventions: do the behaviour change technique taxonomy v1, and training in its use, improve the quality of intervention descriptions?

BackgroundBehaviour change interventions are likely to be reproducible only if reported clearly. We assessed whether the behaviour change technique taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1), with and without training in identifying BCTs, improves the clarity and replicability of written reports of observed behaviour change interventions.MethodsThree studies assessed effects of using and training in the use of BCTTv1 on the clarity and replicability of intervention descriptions written after observing videos of smoking cessation interventions. Study 1 examined the effects of using and not using BCTTv1. Study 2 examined the effects of using BCTTv1 and training in use of BCTTv1 compared no use and no training. Study 3 employed a within-group design to assess change in descriptions written before and after training. One-hundred and 66 ‘writers’ watched videos of behaviour change interventions and wrote descriptions of the active components delivered. In all studies, the participants’ written descriptions were evaluated by (i) 12 ‘raters’ (untrained in BCTTv1) for clarity and replicability and (ii) 12 ‘coders’ (trained in BCTTv1) for reliability of BCT coding. Writers rated the usability and accessibility of using BCTTv1 to write descriptions.ResultsRatings of clarity and replicability did not differ between groups in study 1 (all ps > 0.05), were poorer for trained users in study 2 (all ps < 0.01) and improved following training in study 3 (all ps < 0.05). BCT identification was more reliable from descriptions written by trained BCTTv1 users (p < 0.05; study 2) but not simple use of BCTTv1 (p = 0.93; study 1) or by writers who had written a description without BCTTv1, before training (p = 0.50; study 3). Writers reported that using BCTTv1 was difficult but ‘useful’, ‘good’ and ‘desirable’ and that their descriptions would be clear and replicable (all means above mid-point of the scale).ConclusionsEffects of training to use BCTTv1 on the quality of written reports of observed interventions were mixed, with some suggestion of improved clarity and replicability of reporting in the within- (study 3) but not the between-group studies (studies 1 and 2). Potential benefits of using BCTTv1 may have been limited by the artificial nature and time constraints of the task.

Patient Experiences of Swallowing Exercises After Head and Neck Cancer: A Qualitative Study Examining Barriers and Facilitators Using Behaviour Change Theory

Poor patient adherence to swallowing exercises is commonly reported in the dysphagia literature on patients treated for head and neck cancer. Establishing the effectiveness of exercise interventions for this population may be undermined by patient non-adherence. The purpose of this study was to explore the barriers and facilitators to exercise adherence from a patient perspective, and to determine the best strategies to reduce the barriers and enhance the facilitators. In-depth interviews were conducted on thirteen patients. We used a behaviour change framework and model [Theoretical domains framework and COM-B (Capability–opportunity–motivation-behaviour) model] to inform our interview schedule and structure our results, using a content analysis approach. The most frequent barrier identified was psychological capability. This was highlighted by patient reports of not clearly understanding reasons for the exercises, forgetting to do the exercises and not having a system to keep track. Other barriers included feeling overwhelmed by information at a difficult time (lack of automatic motivation) and pain and fatigue (lack of physical capability). Main facilitators included having social support from family and friends, the desire to prevent negative consequences such as long-term tube feeding (reflective motivation), having the skills to do the exercises (physical capability), having a routine or trigger and receiving feedback on the outcome of doing exercises (automatic motivation). Linking these findings back to the theoretical model allows for a more systematic selection of theory-based strategies that may enhance the design of future swallowing exercise interventions for patients with head and neck cancer.

Communication of behaviour change interventions: can they be recognised from written descriptions?

Objective: Communication of the content of a behaviour change intervention (BCI) involves clear description followed by appropriate recognition and interpretation. We investigated accuracy of recognition of BCI descriptions and the effects of training in the behaviour change taxonomy BCTTv1. Methods: Materials were 166 written descriptions of two BCIs previously written by 166 separate writers after viewing a video of the BCI. Each of the current participants (12 naïve and 12 trained in BCTTv1) was presented with a random sample of the written descriptions and asked to form groups of descriptions they judged to be describing the same intervention. For each participant, we assessed the number of groupings of BCI descriptions, their purity (containing only one BCI) and their differentiation (having a dominant BCI). Results: All except one participant classified the descriptions into more than two groupings. Naïve participants created significantly more groupings, fewer ‘pure’ groupings and less differentiated groupings (all Mann –Whitney p < .05). Conclusions: Written communications of BCI contents may not be recognised and interpreted adequately to support implementation. BCT taxonomy training may lead to some progress in interpreting the active content of interventions but, based on this limited study, further progress is needed if BCIs for accurate implementation.