38
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Applying psychological theories to evidence-based clinical practice: Identifying factors predictive of managing upper respiratory tract infections without antibiotics

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Psychological models can be used to understand and predict behaviour in a wide range of settings. However, they have not been consistently applied to health professional behaviours, and the contribution of differing theories is not clear. The aim of this study was to explore the usefulness of a range of psychological theories to predict health professional behaviour relating to management of upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) without antibiotics.

          Methods

          Psychological measures were collected by postal questionnaire survey from a random sample of general practitioners (GPs) in Scotland. The outcome measures were clinical behaviour (using antibiotic prescription rates as a proxy indicator), behavioural simulation (scenario-based decisions to managing URTI with or without antibiotics) and behavioural intention (general intention to managing URTI without antibiotics). Explanatory variables were the constructs within the following theories: Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), Common Sense Self-Regulation Model (CS-SRM), Operant Learning Theory (OLT), Implementation Intention (II), Stage Model (SM), and knowledge (a non-theoretical construct). For each outcome measure, multiple regression analysis was used to examine the predictive value of each theoretical model individually. Following this 'theory level' analysis, a 'cross theory' analysis was conducted to investigate the combined predictive value of all significant individual constructs across theories.

          Results

          All theories were tested, but only significant results are presented. When predicting behaviour, at the theory level, OLT explained 6% of the variance and, in a cross theory analysis, OLT 'evidence of habitual behaviour' also explained 6%. When predicting behavioural simulation, at the theory level, the proportion of variance explained was: TPB, 31%; SCT, 26%; II, 6%; OLT, 24%. GPs who reported having already decided to change their management to try to avoid the use of antibiotics made significantly fewer scenario-based decisions to prescribe. In the cross theory analysis, perceived behavioural control (TPB), evidence of habitual behaviour (OLT), CS-SRM cause (chance/bad luck), and intention entered the equation, together explaining 36% of the variance. When predicting intention, at the theory level, the proportion of variance explained was: TPB, 30%; SCT, 29%; CS-SRM 27%; OLT, 43%. GPs who reported that they had already decided to change their management to try to avoid the use of antibiotics had a significantly higher intention to manage URTIs without prescribing antibiotics. In the cross theory analysis, OLT evidence of habitual behaviour, TPB attitudes, risk perception, CS-SRM control by doctor, TPB perceived behavioural control and CS-SRM control by treatment entered the equation, together explaining 49% of the variance in intention.

          Conclusion

          The study provides evidence that psychological models can be useful in understanding and predicting clinical behaviour. Taking a theory-based approach enables the creation of a replicable methodology for identifying factors that predict clinical behaviour. However, a number of conceptual and methodological challenges remain.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          How Many Subjects Does It Take To Do A Regression Analysis.

          S Green (1991)
          Numerous rules-of-thumb have been suggested for determining the minimum number of subjects required to conduct multiple regression analyses. These rules-of-thumb are evaluated by comparing their results against those based on power analyses for tests of hypotheses of multiple and partial correlations. The results did not support the use of rules-of-thumb that simply specify some constant (e.g., 100 subjects) as the minimum number of subjects or a minimum ratio of number of subjects (N) to number of predictors (m). Some support was obtained for a rule-of-thumb that N ≥ 50 + 8 m for the multiple correlation and N ≥104 + m for the partial correlation. However, the rule-of-thumb for the multiple correlation yields values too large for N when m ≥ 7, and both rules-of-thumb assume all studies have a medium-size relationship between criterion and predictors. Accordingly, a slightly more complex rule-of thumb is introduced that estimates minimum sample size as function of effect size as well as the number of predictors. It is argued that researchers should use methods to determine sample size that incorporate effect size.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review Group.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Goal Achievement: The Role of Intentions

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Implement Sci
                Implementation science : IS
                BioMed Central (London )
                1748-5908
                2007
                3 August 2007
                : 2
                : 26
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [2 ]Clinical Epidemiology Programme, Ottawa Health Research Institute and Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
                [3 ]School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
                [4 ]Dental Health Services Research Unit, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
                [5 ]Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
                Article
                1748-5908-2-26
                10.1186/1748-5908-2-26
                2042498
                17683558
                1ee2bd89-c5e9-4a4f-8fd2-0fc4b2c755c7
                Copyright © 2007 Eccles et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 21 August 2006
                : 3 August 2007
                Categories
                Research Article

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article