Kok Gerjo, Gottlieb Nell H, Peters Gjalt-Jorn Y, Mullen Patricia Dolan, Parcel Guy S, Ruiter Robert A C, Fernández María E, Markham Christine, Bartholomew L Kay
a School of Psychology & Neuroscience , Maastricht University , Maastricht , MD , The Netherlands.
b School of Public Health , University of Texas , Houston , TX , USA.
Health Psychol Rev. 2016 Sep;10(3):297-312. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2015.1077155. Epub 2015 Oct 15.
In this paper, we introduce the Intervention Mapping (IM) taxonomy of behaviour change methods and its potential to be developed into a coding taxonomy. That is, although IM and its taxonomy of behaviour change methods are not in fact new, because IM was originally developed as a tool for intervention development, this potential was not immediately apparent. Second, in explaining the IM taxonomy and defining the relevant constructs, we call attention to the existence of parameters for effectiveness of methods, and explicate the related distinction between theory-based methods and practical applications and the probability that poor translation of methods may lead to erroneous conclusions as to method-effectiveness. Third, we recommend a minimal set of intervention characteristics that may be reported when intervention descriptions and evaluations are published. Specifying these characteristics can greatly enhance the quality of our meta-analyses and other literature syntheses. In conclusion, the dynamics of behaviour change are such that any taxonomy of methods of behaviour change needs to acknowledge the importance of, and provide instruments for dealing with, three conditions for effectiveness for behaviour change methods. For a behaviour change method to be effective: (1) it must target a determinant that predicts behaviour; (2) it must be able to change that determinant; (3) it must be translated into a practical application in a way that preserves the parameters for effectiveness and fits with the target population, culture, and context. Thus, taxonomies of methods of behaviour change must distinguish the specific determinants that are targeted, practical, specific applications, and the theory-based methods they embody. In addition, taxonomies should acknowledge that the lists of behaviour change methods will be used by, and should be used by, intervention developers. Ideally, the taxonomy should be readily usable for this goal; but alternatively, it should be clear how the information in the taxonomy can be used in practice. The IM taxonomy satisfies these requirements, and it would be beneficial if other taxonomies would be extended to also meet these needs.
在本文中,我们介绍了行为改变方法的干预映射(IM)分类法及其发展成为编码分类法的潜力。也就是说,尽管IM及其行为改变方法分类法实际上并非新事物,因为IM最初是作为一种干预开发工具而开发的,但这种潜力并非立竿见影。其次,在解释IM分类法并定义相关结构时,我们提请注意方法有效性参数的存在,并阐明基于理论的方法与实际应用之间的相关区别,以及方法翻译不当可能导致关于方法有效性的错误结论的可能性。第三,我们推荐了一组在发表干预描述和评估时可能报告的最少干预特征。明确这些特征可以极大地提高我们的荟萃分析和其他文献综述的质量。总之,行为改变的动态特性使得任何行为改变方法分类法都需要认识到行为改变方法有效性的三个条件的重要性,并提供处理这些条件的工具。要使行为改变方法有效:(1)它必须针对预测行为的决定因素;(2)它必须能够改变该决定因素;(3)它必须以保持有效性参数并适合目标人群、文化和背景的方式转化为实际应用。因此,行为改变方法分类法必须区分所针对的具体决定因素、实际的具体应用以及它们所体现的基于理论的方法。此外,分类法应认识到行为改变方法列表将被干预开发者使用,也应该被他们使用。理想情况下,可以为此目的方便地使用分类法;或者,应该清楚分类法中的信息如何在实践中使用。IM分类法满足这些要求,如果其他分类法也能扩展以满足这些需求将是有益的。