ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2024
Linking measures to mechanisms of action in behavior change: A qualitative analysis of expert views.
Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Measuring processes of change in behavioural interventions: Insights gained from linking mechanisms of action to associated measures.British journal of health psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleTesting mechanisms of action (MoAs) hypothesized to underlie behavior change can enhance intervention effectiveness. Rigorous measurement of putative mechanisms is critical to this effort, but measures are rarely validated with respect to target MoAs.
objectiveThis study aimed to elucidate challenges of linking measures to putative MoAs and to identify priorities for future research.
methodThis study was a systematic exploration of written comments by experts in behavioral intervention research and theories of behavior change (N = 20) capturing their opinions about a task querying whether self-report measures from the Science Of Behavior Change (SOBC) Measures Repository were related to a set of MoAs identified by the Human Behaviour Change Project (HBCP).
resultsSix themes were identified: 1) Study Value, 2) Measure Properties, 3) Mechanism Properties, 4) Miscellaneous Measure Concerns, 5) Conceptual Challenges, and 6) Approaches to Developing Measure-Mechanism Links. Experts noted challenges such as lack of measure validation, poor measure properties (e.g., double-barreled items), overly broad MoA definitions that limited their utility, lack of clarity around the term "related," and more. Nonetheless, experts expressed the importance of the exercise. Suggestions included developing and refining measures that are validate for assessing MoAs, clarifying and elaborating MoA definitions, and conducting further, more granular research.
conclusionThis systematic examination of expert comments highlights issues that need further investigation to advance behavioral science, specifically pertaining to identifying valid measures of MoAs in behavioral and process research. This study highlights the challenges and opportunities for future research on linking measures and MoA in behavioral science and subsequently enhancing the efficacy of behavioral interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.