改进回顾性干预描述:从英国和爱尔兰共和国的 2 型糖尿病计划研究中汲取的经验教训。

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Márcia Carvalho, Rhiannon E Hawkes, Michelle Hadjiconstantinou, Molly Byrne, David P French, Jenny McSharry
{"title":"改进回顾性干预描述:从英国和爱尔兰共和国的 2 型糖尿病计划研究中汲取的经验教训。","authors":"Márcia Carvalho, Rhiannon E Hawkes, Michelle Hadjiconstantinou, Molly Byrne, David P French, Jenny McSharry","doi":"10.1093/tbm/ibae033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In recent years, multiple countries worldwide have implemented behavioural interventions within national healthcare systems. Describing the content of these interventions is critical to improve their implementation, replication, and effectiveness, as well as to advance behavioural science. Tools, such as the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy, can enhance the quality of intervention description and reporting. As interventions are frequently developed without the use of such tools, retrospective coding of existing interventions to accurately characterise their content is becoming more common. However, the use of these tools for retrospective coding poses various challenges, the discussion of which has been neglected to date. This commentary discusses the challenges encountered when retrospectively describing the content of five nationally implemented programmes for type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and suggests recommendations to tackle these challenges. We present important methodological, practical, and ethical considerations for researchers to reflect on, relevant to the retrospective description of existing interventions. Specifically, we discuss (i) the importance of positive relationships and collaboration with intervention stakeholders, (ii) the practical and ethical considerations when analysing the content of implemented interventions, (iii) the independence of research teams and the potential for misclassification of intervention content, and (iv) the challenges associated with the analysis of intervention content using behavioural science tools. There is a growing demand for more robust approaches to address the methodological, practical, and ethical challenges associated with such studies. The present commentary describes key issues to be considered by research teams, as well as concrete recommendations to improve the retrospective characterisation of intervention content.</p>","PeriodicalId":48679,"journal":{"name":"Translational Behavioral Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"479-490"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving retrospective intervention descriptions: Lessons learned from research on type 2 diabetes programmes in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.\",\"authors\":\"Márcia Carvalho, Rhiannon E Hawkes, Michelle Hadjiconstantinou, Molly Byrne, David P French, Jenny McSharry\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/tbm/ibae033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In recent years, multiple countries worldwide have implemented behavioural interventions within national healthcare systems. Describing the content of these interventions is critical to improve their implementation, replication, and effectiveness, as well as to advance behavioural science. Tools, such as the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy, can enhance the quality of intervention description and reporting. As interventions are frequently developed without the use of such tools, retrospective coding of existing interventions to accurately characterise their content is becoming more common. However, the use of these tools for retrospective coding poses various challenges, the discussion of which has been neglected to date. This commentary discusses the challenges encountered when retrospectively describing the content of five nationally implemented programmes for type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and suggests recommendations to tackle these challenges. We present important methodological, practical, and ethical considerations for researchers to reflect on, relevant to the retrospective description of existing interventions. Specifically, we discuss (i) the importance of positive relationships and collaboration with intervention stakeholders, (ii) the practical and ethical considerations when analysing the content of implemented interventions, (iii) the independence of research teams and the potential for misclassification of intervention content, and (iv) the challenges associated with the analysis of intervention content using behavioural science tools. There is a growing demand for more robust approaches to address the methodological, practical, and ethical challenges associated with such studies. The present commentary describes key issues to be considered by research teams, as well as concrete recommendations to improve the retrospective characterisation of intervention content.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Translational Behavioral Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"479-490\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Translational Behavioral Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibae033\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational Behavioral Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibae033","RegionNum":3,"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

摘要

近年来,世界上有多个国家在国家医疗保健系统内实施了行为干预措施。描述这些干预措施的内容对于改进其实施、复制和有效性以及推动行为科学的发展至关重要。行为改变技术分类法等工具可以提高干预措施描述和报告的质量。由于干预措施在制定过程中经常没有使用这些工具,因此对现有干预措施进行追溯编码以准确描述其内容的做法正变得越来越普遍。然而,使用这些工具进行回顾性编码会带来各种挑战,迄今为止,对这些挑战的讨论一直被忽视。本评论讨论了在对英国和爱尔兰共和国实施的五项全国性 2 型糖尿病计划的内容进行回顾性描述时遇到的挑战,并提出了应对这些挑战的建议。我们提出了与回顾性描述现有干预措施相关的方法论、实践和伦理方面的重要考虑因素,供研究人员思考。具体来说,我们讨论了 (i) 与干预措施利益相关者建立积极关系和合作的重要性,(ii) 分析已实施干预措施内容时的实践和伦理考虑,(iii) 研究团队的独立性和对干预措施内容进行错误分类的可能性,以及 (iv) 使用行为科学工具分析干预措施内容的相关挑战。人们越来越需要更有力的方法来应对与此类研究相关的方法学、实践和伦理挑战。本评论描述了研究团队需要考虑的关键问题,以及改进干预内容回顾性特征描述的具体建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Improving retrospective intervention descriptions: Lessons learned from research on type 2 diabetes programmes in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

In recent years, multiple countries worldwide have implemented behavioural interventions within national healthcare systems. Describing the content of these interventions is critical to improve their implementation, replication, and effectiveness, as well as to advance behavioural science. Tools, such as the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy, can enhance the quality of intervention description and reporting. As interventions are frequently developed without the use of such tools, retrospective coding of existing interventions to accurately characterise their content is becoming more common. However, the use of these tools for retrospective coding poses various challenges, the discussion of which has been neglected to date. This commentary discusses the challenges encountered when retrospectively describing the content of five nationally implemented programmes for type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and suggests recommendations to tackle these challenges. We present important methodological, practical, and ethical considerations for researchers to reflect on, relevant to the retrospective description of existing interventions. Specifically, we discuss (i) the importance of positive relationships and collaboration with intervention stakeholders, (ii) the practical and ethical considerations when analysing the content of implemented interventions, (iii) the independence of research teams and the potential for misclassification of intervention content, and (iv) the challenges associated with the analysis of intervention content using behavioural science tools. There is a growing demand for more robust approaches to address the methodological, practical, and ethical challenges associated with such studies. The present commentary describes key issues to be considered by research teams, as well as concrete recommendations to improve the retrospective characterisation of intervention content.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Translational Behavioral Medicine
Translational Behavioral Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH -
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
87
期刊介绍: Translational Behavioral Medicine publishes content that engages, informs, and catalyzes dialogue about behavioral medicine among the research, practice, and policy communities. TBM began receiving an Impact Factor in 2015 and currently holds an Impact Factor of 2.989. TBM is one of two journals published by the Society of Behavioral Medicine. The Society of Behavioral Medicine is a multidisciplinary organization of clinicians, educators, and scientists dedicated to promoting the study of the interactions of behavior with biology and the environment, and then applying that knowledge to improve the health and well-being of individuals, families, communities, and populations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信