Evaluation of theory-based interventions using behaviour change techniques in randomised controlled trials on vaccination behaviour: a meta-analysis.

IF 2 3区心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Psychology & Health Pub Date : 2026-09-11 DOI:10.1080/08870446.2026.2731574

Céline Bodelet, Soufian Azouaghe, Aurélie Gauchet

{"title":"Evaluation of theory-based interventions using behaviour change techniques in randomised controlled trials on vaccination behaviour: a meta-analysis.","authors":"Céline Bodelet, Soufian Azouaghe, Aurélie Gauchet","doi":"10.1080/08870446.2026.2731574","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This meta-analysis examined behaviour change techniques (BCTs) used in theory-based randomised controlled trials (RCTs) targeting vaccination uptake. Electronic databases identified 44 studies (N = 428,931).Design: This review was conducted from September to December 2020 and updated in April 2024. It included RCTs with quantitative vaccination behaviour data. RCT quality was assessed using the Cochrane criteria, Theme Coding Scheme and Quality of Survey Studies in Psychology checklist. BCTs were coded using the taxonomy version 1.Main outcome measures: The review included RCTs with quantitative vaccination behaviour data.Results: Interventions had a statistically significant effect on vaccination uptake (OR = 1.56, 95% CI [1.33, 1.81]), with substantial heterogeneity. There was no evidence that BCTs classified as improbable were associated with lower intervention efficacy (ps ≥ .48). Several individual BCTs were associated with larger effects relative to control groups, including BCT 1.2 Problem solving (OR = 1.76, 95% CI [1.30, 2.40]) and BCT 5.3 Information about social and environmental consequences (OR = 1.88, 95%CI [1.37, 2.58]). Some BCT combinations showed descriptively larger effect sizes. For example, BCT 5.3 Information about social and environmental consequences and 13.2 Framing/reframing were associated with larger effects relative to control groups (OR = 3.05, 95%CI [1.58, 5.90]). Moderators had no statistically significant effects (ps ≥ .57).Conclusion: Findings identify promising BCTs and highlight the potential value of combining techniques.Pre-registration: This study was registered with the Centre for Open Science (OSF): https://osf.io/eyrq8/.","PeriodicalId":20718,"journal":{"name":"Psychology & Health","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology & Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2026.2731574","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This meta-analysis examined behaviour change techniques (BCTs) used in theory-based randomised controlled trials (RCTs) targeting vaccination uptake. Electronic databases identified 44 studies (N = 428,931).

Design: This review was conducted from September to December 2020 and updated in April 2024. It included RCTs with quantitative vaccination behaviour data. RCT quality was assessed using the Cochrane criteria, Theme Coding Scheme and Quality of Survey Studies in Psychology checklist. BCTs were coded using the taxonomy version 1.

Main outcome measures: The review included RCTs with quantitative vaccination behaviour data.

Results: Interventions had a statistically significant effect on vaccination uptake (OR = 1.56, 95% CI [1.33, 1.81]), with substantial heterogeneity. There was no evidence that BCTs classified as improbable were associated with lower intervention efficacy (p_s ≥ .48). Several individual BCTs were associated with larger effects relative to control groups, including BCT 1.2 Problem solving (OR = 1.76, 95% CI [1.30, 2.40]) and BCT 5.3 Information about social and environmental consequences (OR = 1.88, 95%CI [1.37, 2.58]). Some BCT combinations showed descriptively larger effect sizes. For example, BCT 5.3 Information about social and environmental consequences and 13.2 Framing/reframing were associated with larger effects relative to control groups (OR = 3.05, 95%CI [1.58, 5.90]). Moderators had no statistically significant effects (p_s ≥ .57).

Conclusion: Findings identify promising BCTs and highlight the potential value of combining techniques.

Pre-registration: This study was registered with the Centre for Open Science (OSF): https://osf.io/eyrq8/.

查看原文本刊更多论文

在疫苗接种行为随机对照试验中使用行为改变技术评估基于理论的干预措施：一项荟萃分析。

目的：本荟萃分析检验了以疫苗接种为目标的基于理论的随机对照试验（rct）中使用的行为改变技术（bct）。电子数据库确定了44项研究（N = 428,931）。设计：本综述于2020年9月至12月进行，并于2024年4月更新。它包括具有定量疫苗接种行为数据的随机对照试验。采用Cochrane标准、主题编码方案和心理学调查研究质量检查表对RCT质量进行评估。使用分类法版本1对bct进行编码。主要结局指标：本综述纳入了具有定量疫苗接种行为数据的随机对照试验。结果：干预措施对疫苗接种率的影响具有统计学意义（OR = 1.56, 95% CI[1.33, 1.81]），但存在很大的异质性。没有证据表明分类为不可能的bct与较低的干预效果相关（ps≥0.48）。与对照组相比，一些单独的BCT具有更大的影响，包括BCT 1.2解决问题（OR = 1.76, 95%CI[1.30, 2.40]）和BCT 5.3关于社会和环境后果的信息（OR = 1.88, 95%CI[1.37, 2.58]）。一些BCT组合显示出描述性更大的效应量。例如，与对照组相比，BCT 5.3关于社会和环境后果的信息和13.2框架/重构与更大的影响相关（OR = 3.05, 95%CI[1.58, 5.90]）。调节因子无统计学显著影响（ps≥0.57）。结论：研究结果确定了有前途的bct，并突出了联合技术的潜在价值。预注册：本研究已在开放科学中心（OSF）注册：https://osf.io/eyrq8/。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Psychology & Health Multiple-

CiteScore

7.30

自引率

3.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Psychology & Health promotes the study and application of psychological approaches to health and illness. The contents include work on psychological aspects of physical illness, treatment processes and recovery; psychosocial factors in the aetiology of physical illnesses; health attitudes and behaviour, including prevention; the individual-health care system interface particularly communication and psychologically-based interventions. The journal publishes original research, and accepts not only papers describing rigorous empirical work, including meta-analyses, but also those outlining new psychological approaches and interventions in health-related fields.