43
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Taxonomy of approaches to developing interventions to improve health: a systematic methods overview

      review-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

          Interventions need to be developed prior to the feasibility and piloting phase of a study. There are a variety of published approaches to developing interventions, programmes or innovations to improve health. Identifying different types of approach, and synthesising the range of actions taken within this endeavour, can inform future intervention development.

          Methods

          This study is a systematic methods overview of approaches to intervention development. Approaches were considered for inclusion if they described how to develop or adapt an intervention in a book, website or journal article published after 2007, or were cited in a primary research study reporting the development of a specific intervention published in 2015 or 2016. Approaches were read, a taxonomy of approaches was developed and the range of actions taken across different approaches were synthesised.

          Results

          Eight categories of approach to intervention development were identified. (1) Partnership, where people who will use the intervention participate equally with the research team in decision-making about the intervention throughout the development process. (2) Target population-centred, where the intervention is based on the views and actions of the people who will use it. (3) Evidence and theory-based, where the intervention is based on published research evidence and existing theories. (4) Implementation-based, where the intervention is developed with attention to ensuring it will be used in the real world. (5) Efficiency-based, where components of an intervention are tested using experimental designs to select components which will optimise efficiency. (6) Stepped or phased, where interventions are developed with an emphasis on following a systematic set of processes. (7) Intervention-specific, where an approach is constructed for a specific type of intervention. (8) Combination, where existing approaches to intervention development are formally combined. The actions from approaches in all eight categories were synthesised to identify 18 actions to consider when developing interventions.

          Conclusions

          This overview of approaches to intervention development can help researchers to understand the variety of existing approaches, and to understand the range of possible actions involved in intervention development, prior to assessing feasibility or piloting the intervention. Findings from this overview will contribute to future guidance on intervention development.

          Trial registration

          PROSPERO CRD42017080553.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s40814-019-0425-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

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

          A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey

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

            From ideas to efficacy: The ORBIT model for developing behavioral treatments for chronic diseases.

            Given the critical role of behavior in preventing and treating chronic diseases, it is important to accelerate the development of behavioral treatments that can improve chronic disease prevention and outcomes. Findings from basic behavioral and social sciences research hold great promise for addressing behaviorally based clinical health problems, yet there is currently no established pathway for translating fundamental behavioral science discoveries into health-related treatments ready for Phase III efficacy testing. This article provides a systematic framework for developing behavioral treatments for preventing and treating chronic diseases.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A systematic development process for patient decision aids

              Background The original version of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) recommended that patient decision aids (PtDAs) should be carefully developed, user-tested and open to scrutiny, with a well-documented and systematically applied development process. We carried out a review to check the relevance and scope of this quality dimension and, if necessary, to update it. Methods Our review drew on three sources: a) published papers describing PtDAs evaluated in randomised controlled trials and included in the most recent Cochrane Collaboration review; b) linked papers cited in the trial reports that described how the PtDAs had been developed; and c) papers and web reports outlining the development process used by organisations experienced in developing multiple PtDAs. We then developed an extended model of the development process indicating the various steps on which documentation is required, as well as a checklist to assess the frequency with which each of the elements was publicly reported. Results Key features common to all patient decision aid (PtDA) development processes include: scoping and design; development of a prototype; ‘alpha’ testing with patients and clinicians in an iterative process; ‘beta’ testing in ‘real life’ conditions (field tests); and production of a final version for use and/or further evaluation. Only about half of the published reports on the development of PtDAs that we reviewed appear to have been field tested with patients, and even fewer had been reviewed or tested by clinicians not involved in the development process. Very few described a distribution strategy, and surprisingly few (17%) described a method for reviewing and synthesizing the clinical evidence. We describe a model development process that includes all the original elements of the original IPDAS criterion, expanded to include consideration of format and distribution plans as well as prototype development. Conclusions The case for including each of the elements outlined in our model development process is pragmatic rather than evidence-based. Optimal methods for ensuring that each stage of the process is carried out effectively require further development and testing.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                a.ocathain@sheffield.ac.uk
                l.croot@sheffield.ac.uk
                K.Sworn@sheffield.ac.uk
                edward.duncan@stir.ac.uk
                nikki.rousseau@stir.ac.uk
                Katrina.Turner@bristol.ac.uk
                Lucy.Yardley@bristol.ac.uk
                p.m.hoddinott@stir.ac.uk
                Journal
                Pilot Feasibility Stud
                Pilot Feasibility Stud
                Pilot and Feasibility Studies
                BioMed Central (London )
                2055-5784
                12 March 2019
                12 March 2019
                2019
                : 5
                : 41
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9262, GRID grid.11835.3e, Medical Care Research Unit, Health Services Research, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), , University of Sheffield, ; Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2248 4331, GRID grid.11918.30, NMAHP Research Unit, , University of Stirling, ; Stirling, FK9 4NF UK
                [3 ]Population Health Sciences, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4033-506X
                Article
                425
                10.1186/s40814-019-0425-6
                6419435
                30923626
                da099b01-ee14-4132-8191-3c6b232e9a52
                © The Author(s). 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 24 September 2018
                : 24 February 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000265, Medical Research Council;
                Award ID: MR/N015339/1
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                intervention development,review,methodology,guidance,health
                intervention development, review, methodology, guidance, health

                Comments

                Comment on this article