背景:药学实践研究通常集中在设计上,药学服务和干预措施的实施和评估。在干预研究中使用行为理论可以理解干预的作用机制,并且更有可能导致有效和持续的干预。
目的:整理,对报告的行为框架进行总结和分类,药学实践研究中使用的模型和理论。
方法:PubMed,Cochrane中央对照试验登记册(中央),WebofScience和EBSCO(CINAHLPLUS,英国教育指数,ERIC)进行了系统搜索,以捕获所有报告使用行为框架的药学实践文章,理论,或自数据库成立以来的模型。对结果进行过滤,以包括在药学实践期刊上以英文发表的文章。全文筛选和数据提取由两名审阅者独立进行。采用了数据的叙述性综合。对研究进行了审查,以与英国医学研究理事会(MRC)框架保持一致,以确定采用了理论/模型/框架的研究阶段。
结果:50篇文章符合纳入标准;确定了一种趋势,表明药学实践研究中行为理论/框架/模型的频率在增加;最常报道的是计划行为理论和理论领域框架。很少有研究为采用特定的理论/模型/框架提供明确而全面的理由,并且缺乏对它如何支撑研究的描述。大多数是探索行为决定因素的调查,或促进者和在各种临床环境中实施或提供广泛的药房服务和计划的障碍(与英国MRC第一阶段框架一致)。
结论:这篇综述是未来研究人员为他们的研究提供信息的有用资源。更加强调在使用行为理论/模型/框架的报告中采用系统方法将有利于药学实践研究,并将支持研究人员在干预开发之外的药学实践研究方面利用行为理论/模型/框架。
BACKGROUND: Pharmacy practice research often focuses on the design, implementation and evaluation of pharmacy services and interventions. The use of behavioural theory in intervention research allows understanding of interventions\' mechanisms of action and are more likely to result in effective and sustained interventions.
OBJECTIVE: To collate, summarise and categorise the reported behavioural frameworks, models and theories used in pharmacy practice research.
METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and EBSCO (CINAHL PLUS, British Education index, ERIC) were systematically searched to capture all pharmacy practice articles that had reported the use of behavioural frameworks, theories, or models since inception of the database. Results were filtered to include articles published in English in pharmacy practice journals. Full-text screening and data extraction were independently performed by two reviewers. A narrative synthesis of the data was adopted. Studies were reviewed for alignment to the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) framework to identify in which phase(s) of the research that the theory/model/framework had been employed.
RESULTS: Fifty articles met the inclusion criteria; a trend indicating an increasing frequency of behavioural theory/frameworks/models within pharmacy practice research was identified; the most frequently reported were Theory of Planned Behaviour and Theoretical Domains Framework. Few studies provided explicit and comprehensive justification for adopting a specific theory/model/framework and description of how it underpinned the research was lacking. The majority were investigations exploring determinants of behaviours, or facilitators and barriers to implementing or delivering a wide range of pharmacy services and initiatives within a variety of clinical settings (aligned to Phase 1 UK MRC framework).
CONCLUSIONS: This review serves as a useful resource for future researchers to inform their investigations. Greater emphasis to adopt a systematic approach in the reporting of the use of behavioural theories/models/frameworks will benefit pharmacy practice research and will support researchers in utilizing behavioural theories/models/framework in aspects of pharmacy practice research beyond intervention development.