Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28259168›Full record

SynthesisImplementation science : IS2017

Methods for designing interventions to change healthcare professionals' behaviour: a systematic review.

Heather L Colquhoun, Janet E Squires, Niina Kolehmainen, Cynthia Fraser, Jeremy M Grimshaw

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Implementation science : IS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 135 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
135citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
46.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

135 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 299 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Implementation research in Primary Care (Part 2): How to conduct implementation research?Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2026
    Review

75 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Heather L ColquhounDepartment of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, 160-500 University Ave, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1V7, Canada. heather.colquhoun@utoronto.ca.
Janet E SquiresOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital, General Campus, 501 Smyth Road, Centre for Practice Changing Research, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada.
Niina KolehmainenInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, The Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
Cynthia FraserHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, Scotland.
Jeremy M GrimshawOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital, General Campus, 501 Smyth Road, Centre for Practice Changing Research, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada.
Ottawa Hospital Research InstituteNewcastle University · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

CIHRMedical Research Council G0902129
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic reviews consistently indicate that interventions to change healthcare professional (HCP) behaviour are haphazardly designed and poorly specified. Clarity about methods for designing and specifying interventions is needed. The objective of this review was to identify published methods for designing interventions to change HCP behaviour.

methodsA search of MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO was conducted from 1996 to April 2015. Using inclusion/exclusion criteria, a broad screen of abstracts by one rater was followed by a strict screen of full text for all potentially relevant papers by three raters. An inductive approach was first applied to the included studies to identify commonalities and differences between the descriptions of methods across the papers. Based on this process and knowledge of related literatures, we developed a data extraction framework that included, e.g. level of change (e.g. individual versus organization); context of development; a brief description of the method; tasks included in the method (e.g. barrier identification, component selection, use of theory).

results3966 titles and abstracts and 64 full-text papers were screened to yield 15 papers included in the review, each outlining one design method. All of the papers reported methods developed within a specific context. Thirteen papers included barrier identification and 13 included linking barriers to intervention components; although not the same 13 papers. Thirteen papers targeted individual HCPs with only one paper targeting change across individual, organization, and system levels. The use of theory and user engagement were included in 13/15 and 13/15 papers, respectively.

conclusionsThere is an agreement across methods of four tasks that need to be completed when designing individual-level interventions: identifying barriers, selecting intervention components, using theory, and engaging end-users. Methods also consist of further additional tasks. Examples of methods for designing the organisation and system-level interventions were limited. Further analysis of design tasks could facilitate the development of detailed guidelines for designing interventions.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelHumansInservice TrainingProfessional PracticeTranslational Research, BiomedicalIntervention designKnowledge translationMethodologySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28259168
PMCPMC5336662
OpenAlexW2591591866

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.