ArticleBritish journal of health psychology2025
Measuring processes of change in behavioural interventions: Insights gained from linking mechanisms of action to associated measures.
Article in British journal of health psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers 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
- Linking behaviour change techniques to mechanisms of action: Using the Theory and Techniques Tool alongside the Behaviour Change Intervention Ontology.Wellcome open research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTesting mechanisms of action (MoAs) hypothesized to drive behaviour change improves intervention efficacy and allows theoretical propositions to be evaluated, enabling evidence accumulation. However, clear correspondence between behavioural MoAs and associated measures is lacking, creating challenges for intervention evaluation.
aimsTo link well-defined behavioural MoAs to multidimensional measures.
methodTwo researchers independently judged whether 44 measures (comprising 131 (sub)scales) in the Science of Behavior Change (SOBC) Measures Repository are suitable for measuring 270 MoAs from the Human Behaviour-Change Project's MoA Ontology (2022). Links were categorized as 'confirmed' (aligned with a prior expert opinion study linking measures to 26 MoAs), 'removed' or 'new'. Judgements were compared, discussed, reconciled iteratively and jointly reviewed for consistency.
resultsSix hundred and eighty-six links between SOBC measures and MoAs were identified (397 'confirmed', 289 'new'). Measures were found to tap into multiple MoAs, with 5.24 MoAs linked to each measure on average. These links demonstrated greater granularity than those identified in a previous expert opinion study because MoAs from the MoA Ontology were more specific than MoAs from this previous study. Commonly co-occurring MoAs were identified (e.g., 'self-regulation process' and 'self-regulation capability') and MoAs potentially missing from the ontology were noted.
conclusionThe refined measure-MoA links provide more precise guidance for researchers when designing and/or selecting measures to assess the role of MoAs in theory-based behavioural interventions. Future research should further explore measure-MoA links by, for example, testing the discriminant content validity of ostensibly distinct measures that tap into the same or similar MoAs.
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.