Alice Zelenka Martin, D Weston, J M Kesten, C E French
{"title":"A scoping review of behavioural science approaches and frameworks for health protection and emergency response.","authors":"Alice Zelenka Martin, D Weston, J M Kesten, C E French","doi":"10.1177/17579139241257102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Rapid intervention development, implementation, and evaluation are required for emergency public health contexts, such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic. A novel Agile Co-production and Evaluation (ACE) framework has been developed to assist this endeavour in future public health emergencies. This scoping review aimed to map available behavioural science resources that can be used to develop and evaluate public health guidance, messaging, and interventions in emergency contexts onto components of ACE: rapid development and implementation, co-production with patients or the public including seldom heard voices from diverse communities, and inclusion of evaluation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review methodology was used. Searches were run on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Google, with search terms covering emergency response and behavioural science. Articles published since 2014 and which discussed a framework or guidance for using behavioural science in response to a public health emergency were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen records were included in the synthesis. The records covered a range of emergency contexts, the most frequent of which were COVID-19 (<i>n</i> = 7) and non-specific emergencies (<i>n</i> = 4). One record evaluated existing approaches, 6 proposed new approaches, and 10 described existing approaches. Commonly used approaches included the Behavioural Change Wheel; Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behaviour model; and social identity theory. Three records discuss co-production with the target audience and consideration of diverse populations. Four records incorporate rapid testing, evaluation, or validation methods. Six records state that their approaches are designed to be implemented rapidly. No records cover all components of ACE.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We recommend that future research explores how to create guidance involving rapid implementation, co-production with patients or the public including seldom heard voices from diverse communities, and evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":47256,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in Public Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives in Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17579139241257102","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims: Rapid intervention development, implementation, and evaluation are required for emergency public health contexts, such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic. A novel Agile Co-production and Evaluation (ACE) framework has been developed to assist this endeavour in future public health emergencies. This scoping review aimed to map available behavioural science resources that can be used to develop and evaluate public health guidance, messaging, and interventions in emergency contexts onto components of ACE: rapid development and implementation, co-production with patients or the public including seldom heard voices from diverse communities, and inclusion of evaluation.
Methods: A scoping review methodology was used. Searches were run on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Google, with search terms covering emergency response and behavioural science. Articles published since 2014 and which discussed a framework or guidance for using behavioural science in response to a public health emergency were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted.
Results: Seventeen records were included in the synthesis. The records covered a range of emergency contexts, the most frequent of which were COVID-19 (n = 7) and non-specific emergencies (n = 4). One record evaluated existing approaches, 6 proposed new approaches, and 10 described existing approaches. Commonly used approaches included the Behavioural Change Wheel; Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behaviour model; and social identity theory. Three records discuss co-production with the target audience and consideration of diverse populations. Four records incorporate rapid testing, evaluation, or validation methods. Six records state that their approaches are designed to be implemented rapidly. No records cover all components of ACE.
Conclusion: We recommend that future research explores how to create guidance involving rapid implementation, co-production with patients or the public including seldom heard voices from diverse communities, and evaluation.
期刊介绍:
Perspectives in Public Health is a bi-monthly peer-reviewed journal. It is practice orientated and features current topics and opinions; news and views on current health issues; case studies; book reviews; letters to the Editor; as well as updates on the Society"s work. The journal also commissions articles for themed issues and publishes original peer-reviewed articles. Perspectives in Public Health"s primary aim is to be an invaluable resource for the Society"s members, who are health-promoting professionals from many disciplines, including environmental health, health protection, health and safety, food safety and nutrition, building and engineering, primary care, academia and government.