Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:39:26.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

21 - Developing Behavior Change Interventions

from Part II - Methods and Processes of Behavior Change: Intervention Development, Application, and Translation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2020

Martin S. Hagger
Affiliation:
University of California, Merced
Linda D. Cameron
Affiliation:
University of California, Merced
Kyra Hamilton
Affiliation:
Griffith University
Nelli Hankonen
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki
Taru Lintunen
Affiliation:
University of Jyväskylä
Get access

Summary

Robust development of behavior change interventions is based on a sound understanding of the target group, the target behaviors that need to change, the context in which change will occur, the hypothesized mechanisms of change, and the behavior change techniques. Intervention development frameworks advocate a systematic approach to behavior change intervention development. Key tasks include (1) identify and analyze the problem addressed in behavioral terms; (2) identify intervention mechanisms, content, and delivery mode(s) and design a logic model or program theory; (3) develop materials or prototypes (e.g., interface); and (4) test the intervention iteratively through empirical optimization. The tasks apply to both developing new interventions and optimizing existing interventions. The tasks may differ somewhat for digital behavior change interventions (e.g., iterative testing and refinement of early prototypes during development). Depending on time and resources, the tasks can be completed relatively quickly or take considerable time. The current chapter presents key challenges in intervention development and describes potential solutions. Fidelity, feasibility, and acceptability should be considered during all development tasks. The chapter also provides recommendations for advancing the methodology of intervention development and the use of intervention development frameworks and approaches in practice and policy settings.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Araújo-Soares, V., Hankonen, N., Presseau, J., Rodrigues, A., & Sniehotta, F. F. (2018). Developing behavior change interventions for self-management in chronic illness: An integrative overview. European Psychologist, 24, 725. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000330CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartholomew Eldredge, L. K., Markham, C. M., Ruiter, R. A. C., Fernández, M. E., Kok, G., & Parcel, G. S. (2016). Planning Health Promotion Programs: An Intervention Mapping Approach. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Bonell, C., Jamal, F., Melendez-Torres, G. J., & Cummins, S. (2015). “Dark logic”: Theorising the harmful consequences of public health interventions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 69, 9598. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2014-204671Google Scholar
Collins, L. M., Murphy, S. A., & Strecher, V. (2007). The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) and the sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART): New methods for more potent eHealth interventions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32, S112S118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.01.022Google Scholar
Cook, P. A., Hargreaves, S. C., Burns, E. J. et al. (2018). Communities in charge of alcohol (CICA): A protocol for a stepped-wedge randomised control trial of an alcohol health champions programme. BMC Public Health, 18, 522. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5410-0Google Scholar
Craig, P., Dieppe, P., Macintyre, S., Michie, S., Nazareth, I., & Petticrew, M. (2008). Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 337, a1655. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1655Google Scholar
Davidoff, F., Dixon-Woods, M., Leviton, L., & Michie, S. (2015). Demystifying theory and its use in improvement. BMJ Quality and Safety, 24, 228238. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003627CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dombrowski, S. U., Sniehotta, F. F., Avenell, A., Johnston, M., MacLennan, G., & Araújo-Soares, V. (2012). Identifying active ingredients in complex behavioural interventions for obese adults with obesity-related co-morbidities or additional risk factors for co-morbidities: A systematic review. Health Psychology Review, 6, 732. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2010.513298Google Scholar
Evans, R., Brockman, R., Grey, J. et al. (2018). A cluster randomised controlled trial of the Wellbeing in Secondary Education (WISE) Project: An intervention to improve the mental health support and training available to secondary school teachers: protocol for an integrated process evaluation. Trials, 19, 270. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2617-4Google Scholar
Gomersall, T. (2018). Complex adaptive systems: A new approach for understanding health practices. Health Psychology Review, 12, 405418. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2018.1488603CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hankonen, N., Heino, M. T. J., Araújo-Soares, V. et al. (2016). “Let’s Move It”: A school-based multilevel intervention to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour among older adolescents in vocational secondary schools: A study protocol for a cluster-randomised trial. BMC Public Health, 16, 451. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3094-xGoogle Scholar
Hawe, P. (2015). Lessons from complex interventions to improve health. Annual Review of Public Health, 36, 307323. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031912-114421Google Scholar
Heino, M. T. J., Noonan, C., Knittle, K., & Hankonen, N. (2019). Studying behaviour change mechanisms under complexity. Unpublished manuscript, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. C., Glasziou, P. P., Boutron, I. et al. (2014). Better reporting of interventions: Template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ, 348, g1687. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1687Google Scholar
Kwasnicka, D., Dombrowski, S. U., White, M., & Sniehotta, F. F. (2015). Data-prompted interviews: Using individual ecological data to stimulate narratives and explore meanings. Health Psychology, 34, 11911194. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000234Google Scholar
Leykum, L. K., Pugh, J., Lawrence, V. et al. (2007). Organizational interventions employing principles of complexity science have improved outcomes for patients with Type II diabetes. Implementation Science, 2, 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-2-28Google Scholar
Michie, S., Atkins, L., & West, R. (2014). The Behaviour Change Wheel: A Guide to Designing Interventions. London: Silverback Publishing.Google Scholar
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6, 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, H., Hoddinott, P., Thomson, G. et al. (2015). Benefits of Incentives for Breastfeeding and Smoking Cessation in Pregnancy (BIBS): A Mixed-Methods Study to Inform Trial Design. Southampton: NIHR Journals Library.Google Scholar
O’Cathain, A., Croot, L., Sworn, K. et al. (2019). Taxonomy of approaches to developing interventions to improve health: A systematic methods overview. Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-019-0425-6Google Scholar
Pawson, R. (2006). Evidence-Based Policy: A Realist Perspective. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Pears, S., Morton, K., Bijker, M., Sutton, S., Hardeman, W., & VBI Programme Team. (2015). Development and feasibility study of very brief interventions for physical activity in primary care. BMC Public Health, 15, 333. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1703-8Google Scholar
Perski, O., Blandford, A., West, R., & Michie, S. (2017). Conceptualising engagement with digital behaviour change interventions: A systematic review using principles from critical interpretive synthesis. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 7, 254267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-016-0453-1Google Scholar
Resnicow, K., & Page, S. E. (2008). Embracing chaos and complexity: A quantum change for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 13821389. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.129460CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sekhon, M., Cartwright, M., & Francis, J. (2017). Acceptability of healthcare interventions: An overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Services Research, 17, 88. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skivington, K., Matthews, L., Craig, P., Simpson, S., & Moore, L. (2018). Developing and evaluating complex interventions: Updating Medical Research Council guidance to take account of new methodological and theoretical approaches. The Lancet, 392, S2. Meeting abstract: Public Health Science 2018, Belfast, Northern Ireland, November 23, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32865-4Google Scholar
Toomey, E., Hardeman, W., Hankonen, N. et al. (2019). Focusing on fidelity: Recommendations for improving intervention fidelity within trials of health behavioral interventions. Unpublished manuscript, National University of Ireland, Galway.Google Scholar
Tully, M. A., Cunningham, C., Wright, A. et al. (2019). Peer-led walking programme to increase physical activity in inactive 60-to 70-year-olds: Walk with Me pilot RCT. Public Health Research, 7. https://doi.org/10.3310/phr07100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
University of Wisconsin. (2008). Developing a logic model: Teaching and training guide. Program Development and Evaluation. Website. https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/programdevelopment/logic-models/Google Scholar
University of Wisconsin-Extension. (2003). Enhancing program performance with logic models. Program Development and Evaluation. Website. https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/programdevelopment/designing-programs/Google Scholar
W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Using Logic Models to Bring Together Planning, Evaluation, and Action: Logic Model Development Guide. Michigan: W. K. Kellogg Foundation.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×