To use or not to use behavioural science evidence in designing health promotion interventions: Identification of targets for capacity building.

Abstract

Objectives: The behavioural sciences provide useful evidence to design effective health promotion interventions, but evidence is infrequently integrated in practice. This study examined associations between theoretical domains framework (TDF) constructs and public health practitioners' use of behavioural science evidence to plan public health actions.

Methods: Using a cross-sectional design, a convenience sample of 160 practitioners were recruited from public health agencies across Canada. Respondents completed an online questionnaire assessing TDF constructs and the use of behavioural science theory and approaches (i.e., evidence) in their practice. Logistic regression analyses allowed for identification of factors associated with evidence use and intentions. All analyses were adjusted for sex, years of experience, and type of public health agency.

Results: Greater skills (OR_adj = 4.1, 95%CI 1.3, 13.5) and stronger intentions/aligned goals (OR_adj = 9.2, 95%CI 2.3, 36.1) were associated with greater use of behavioural science evidence to plan public health actions. Greater perceived capacity to overcome widespread absence of use of behavioural science evidence in their organization (OR_adj = 7.2, 95%CI 1.7, 30.3) was also associated with greater use. More knowledge (OR_adj = 8.6, 95%CI 1.9, 39.1) and stronger beliefs about consequences (OR_adj = 4.0, 95%CI 1.1, 14.7) were significantly associated with stronger intentions/aligned goals.

Conclusion: Findings show that more knowledge, positive attitudes, and stronger perceived competence are associated with greater likelihood of using behavioural science evidence to plan interventions. The use of behavioural science evidence will also require strengthening the norm pertaining to this professional practice in public health organizations.