近年来,全球多个国家已经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善其实施至关重要,复制,和有效性,以及推进行为科学。工具,比如行为改变技术分类,可以提高干预描述和报告的质量。由于经常在不使用此类工具的情况下制定干预措施,对现有干预措施进行回顾性编码以准确描述其内容变得越来越普遍。然而,使用这些工具进行回顾性编码带来了各种挑战,到目前为止,它的讨论一直被忽视。本评论讨论了在回顾性描述英国和爱尔兰共和国的五个国家实施的2型糖尿病计划的内容时遇到的挑战,并提出了应对这些挑战的建议。我们提出了重要的方法论,实用,以及研究人员需要反思的伦理考虑,与现有干预措施的回顾性描述相关。具体来说,我们讨论了(I)与干预利益相关者建立积极关系和合作的重要性,(ii)分析实施干预措施的内容时的实践和道德考虑因素,(三)研究团队的独立性和干预内容错误分类的可能性,和(iv)与使用行为科学工具分析干预内容相关的挑战。越来越需要更强大的方法来解决方法论,实用,以及与此类研究相关的伦理挑战。本评论描述了研究小组要考虑的关键问题,以及改善干预内容回顾性特征的具体建议。
在本评论中,我们讨论了研究人员如何最好地描述现有行为干预的内容.我们讨论了在分析英国和爱尔兰共和国2型糖尿病预防和管理的行为干预措施时面临的挑战。具体来说,我们思考与负责制定和/或实施干预措施的人建立良好关系和合作的重要性,重要的实践和道德考虑,处理研究团队的独立性,用行为科学工具指导干预内容的分析。我们还分享了我们从这些经验中学到的东西,以及关于如何应对这些挑战的一些想法。我们的经验和教训可以为未来对现有干预措施的分析提供宝贵的见解。
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.
In this commentary, we discuss how researchers can best describe the content of existing behavioural interventions. We talk about the challenges we faced when analysing behavioural interventions for type 2 diabetes prevention and management in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Specifically, we reflect on the importance of building good relationships and collaborating with those responsible for developing and/or delivering the interventions, important practical and ethical considerations, dealing with research team independence, and using behavioural science tools to guide the analysis of intervention content. We also share what we have learned from these experiences and some ideas on how to tackle these challenges. Our experiences and lessons can offer valuable insights for future analyses of existing interventions.