使用行为改变轮方法的定性过程评估:用于减少英国医院内严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型的全基因组序列报告表(SRF)是否如预期那样运行?

IF 3.5 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Paul Flowers, Ruth Leiser, Fiona Mapp, Julie McLeod, Oliver Stirrup, Christopher J. R. Illingworth, James Blackstone, Judith Breuer
{"title":"使用行为改变轮方法的定性过程评估:用于减少英国医院内严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型的全基因组序列报告表(SRF)是否如预期那样运行?","authors":"Paul Flowers,&nbsp;Ruth Leiser,&nbsp;Fiona Mapp,&nbsp;Julie McLeod,&nbsp;Oliver Stirrup,&nbsp;Christopher J. R. Illingworth,&nbsp;James Blackstone,&nbsp;Judith Breuer","doi":"10.1111/bjhp.12666","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>The aim of this study was to conduct a process evaluation of a whole-genome sequence report form (SRF) used to reduce nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 through changing infection prevention and control (IPC) behaviours within the COVID-19 pandemic.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We used a three-staged design. Firstly, we described and theorized the purported content of the SRF using the behaviour change wheel (BCW). Secondly, we used inductive thematic analysis of one-to-one interviews (<i>n</i> = 39) to explore contextual accounts of using the SRF. Thirdly, further deductive analysis gauged support for the intervention working as earlier anticipated.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>It was possible to theorize the SRF using the BCW approach and visualize it within a simple logic model. Inductive thematic analyses identified the SRF's acceptability, ease of use and perceived effectiveness. However, major challenges to embedding it in routine practice during the unfolding COVID-19 crisis were reported. Notwithstanding this insight, deductive analysis showed support for the putative intervention functions ‘<i>Education</i>’, ‘<i>Persuasion</i>’ and ‘<i>Enablement</i>’; behaviour change techniques ‘1.2 <i>Problem solving</i>’, ‘2.6 <i>Biofeedback</i>’, ‘2.7 <i>Feedback on outcomes of behaviour</i>’ and ‘7.1 <i>Prompts and cues</i>’; and theoretical domains framework domains ‘<i>Knowledge</i>’ and ‘<i>Behavioural regulation</i>’.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Our process evaluation of the SRF, using the BCW approach to describe and theorize its content, provided granular support for the SRF working to change IPC behaviours as anticipated. However, our complementary inductive thematic analysis highlighted the importance of the local context in constraining its routine use. For SRFs to reach their full potential in reducing nosocomial infections, further implementation research is needed.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48161,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Health Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjhp.12666","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A qualitative process evaluation using the behaviour change wheel approach: Did a whole genome sequence report form (SRF) used to reduce nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 within UK hospitals operate as anticipated?\",\"authors\":\"Paul Flowers,&nbsp;Ruth Leiser,&nbsp;Fiona Mapp,&nbsp;Julie McLeod,&nbsp;Oliver Stirrup,&nbsp;Christopher J. R. Illingworth,&nbsp;James Blackstone,&nbsp;Judith Breuer\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bjhp.12666\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>The aim of this study was to conduct a process evaluation of a whole-genome sequence report form (SRF) used to reduce nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 through changing infection prevention and control (IPC) behaviours within the COVID-19 pandemic.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We used a three-staged design. Firstly, we described and theorized the purported content of the SRF using the behaviour change wheel (BCW). Secondly, we used inductive thematic analysis of one-to-one interviews (<i>n</i> = 39) to explore contextual accounts of using the SRF. Thirdly, further deductive analysis gauged support for the intervention working as earlier anticipated.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>It was possible to theorize the SRF using the BCW approach and visualize it within a simple logic model. Inductive thematic analyses identified the SRF's acceptability, ease of use and perceived effectiveness. However, major challenges to embedding it in routine practice during the unfolding COVID-19 crisis were reported. Notwithstanding this insight, deductive analysis showed support for the putative intervention functions ‘<i>Education</i>’, ‘<i>Persuasion</i>’ and ‘<i>Enablement</i>’; behaviour change techniques ‘1.2 <i>Problem solving</i>’, ‘2.6 <i>Biofeedback</i>’, ‘2.7 <i>Feedback on outcomes of behaviour</i>’ and ‘7.1 <i>Prompts and cues</i>’; and theoretical domains framework domains ‘<i>Knowledge</i>’ and ‘<i>Behavioural regulation</i>’.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Our process evaluation of the SRF, using the BCW approach to describe and theorize its content, provided granular support for the SRF working to change IPC behaviours as anticipated. However, our complementary inductive thematic analysis highlighted the importance of the local context in constraining its routine use. For SRFs to reach their full potential in reducing nosocomial infections, further implementation research is needed.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48161,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Health Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjhp.12666\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Health Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjhp.12666\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Health Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjhp.12666","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是对全基因组序列报告表(SRF)进行过程评估,该报告表用于通过改变新冠肺炎大流行中的感染预防和控制(IPC)行为来减少医院感染的SARS-CoV-2。方法:采用三阶段设计。首先,我们使用行为改变轮(BCW)描述并理论化了SRF的所谓内容。其次,我们对一对一访谈(n = 39)来探索使用SRF的上下文说明。第三,进一步的演绎分析衡量了对干预措施的支持,正如之前预期的那样。结果:可以使用BCW方法将SRF理论化,并在一个简单的逻辑模型中可视化。归纳专题分析确定了SRF的可接受性、易用性和感知的有效性。然而,据报道,在新冠肺炎危机期间,将其纳入日常实践面临重大挑战。尽管有这种见解,演绎分析显示支持假定的干预功能“教育”、“说服”和“使能”;行为改变技术“1.2问题解决”、“2.6生物反馈”、“2.7行为结果反馈”和“7.1提示和线索”;和理论领域框架领域“知识”和“行为调节”。结论:我们对SRF的过程评估,使用BCW方法来描述和理论化其内容,为SRF按照预期改变IPC行为提供了细粒度的支持。然而,我们的补充归纳主题分析强调了当地背景在限制其日常使用方面的重要性。SRF要充分发挥其在减少医院感染方面的潜力,还需要进一步的实施研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A qualitative process evaluation using the behaviour change wheel approach: Did a whole genome sequence report form (SRF) used to reduce nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 within UK hospitals operate as anticipated?

A qualitative process evaluation using the behaviour change wheel approach: Did a whole genome sequence report form (SRF) used to reduce nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 within UK hospitals operate as anticipated?

Purpose

The aim of this study was to conduct a process evaluation of a whole-genome sequence report form (SRF) used to reduce nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 through changing infection prevention and control (IPC) behaviours within the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

We used a three-staged design. Firstly, we described and theorized the purported content of the SRF using the behaviour change wheel (BCW). Secondly, we used inductive thematic analysis of one-to-one interviews (n = 39) to explore contextual accounts of using the SRF. Thirdly, further deductive analysis gauged support for the intervention working as earlier anticipated.

Results

It was possible to theorize the SRF using the BCW approach and visualize it within a simple logic model. Inductive thematic analyses identified the SRF's acceptability, ease of use and perceived effectiveness. However, major challenges to embedding it in routine practice during the unfolding COVID-19 crisis were reported. Notwithstanding this insight, deductive analysis showed support for the putative intervention functions ‘Education’, ‘Persuasion’ and ‘Enablement’; behaviour change techniques ‘1.2 Problem solving’, ‘2.6 Biofeedback’, ‘2.7 Feedback on outcomes of behaviour’ and ‘7.1 Prompts and cues’; and theoretical domains framework domains ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Behavioural regulation’.

Conclusions

Our process evaluation of the SRF, using the BCW approach to describe and theorize its content, provided granular support for the SRF working to change IPC behaviours as anticipated. However, our complementary inductive thematic analysis highlighted the importance of the local context in constraining its routine use. For SRFs to reach their full potential in reducing nosocomial infections, further implementation research is needed.

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
British Journal of Health Psychology
British Journal of Health Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
14.10
自引率
1.30%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: The focus of the British Journal of Health Psychology is to publish original research on various aspects of psychology that are related to health, health-related behavior, and illness throughout a person's life. The journal specifically seeks articles that are based on health psychology theory or discuss theoretical matters within the field.
×
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