Hend Talkhan1, Derek Stewart2, Trudi Mcintosh1, Hisham Ziglam3, Palli Valappila Abdulrouf4, Moza Al-Hail4, Mohammad Diab2, Scott Cunningham1. 1. School of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK. 2. College of Pharmacy, QU Health, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar. 3. Infectious Diseases Department, Hamad General Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar. 4. Pharmacy Department, Women's Wellness and Research Center, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review (SR) reviews the evidence on use of theory in developing and evaluating behaviour change interventions (BCIs) to improve clinicians' antimicrobial prescribing (AP). METHODS: The SR protocol was registered with PROSPERO. Eleven databases were searched from inception to October 2018 for peer-reviewed, English-language, primary literature in any healthcare setting and for any medical condition. This included research on changing behavioural intentions (e.g. in simulated scenarios) and research measuring actual AP. All study designs/methodologies were included. Excluded were: grey literature and/or those which did not state a theory. Two reviewers independently extracted and quality assessed the data. The Theory Coding Scheme (TCS) evaluated the extent of the use of theory. RESULTS: Searches found 4227 potentially relevant papers after removal of duplicates. Screening of titles/abstracts led to dual assessment of 38 full-text papers. Ten (five quantitative, three qualitative and two mixed-methods) met the inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in the UK (n = 8), Canada (n = 1) and Sweden (n = 1), most in primary care settings (n = 9), targeting respiratory tract infections (n = 8), and medical doctors (n = 10). The most common theories used were Theory of Planned Behaviour (n = 7), Social Cognitive Theory (n = 5) and Operant Learning Theory (n = 5). The use of theory to inform the design and choice of intervention varied, with no optimal use as recommended in the TCS. CONCLUSIONS: This SR is the first to investigate theoretically based BCIs around AP. Few studies were identified; most were suboptimal in theory use. There is a need to consider how theory is used and reported and the systematic use of the TCS could help.
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review (SR) reviews the evidence on use of theory in developing and evaluating behaviour change interventions (BCIs) to improve clinicians' antimicrobial prescribing (AP). METHODS: The SR protocol was registered with PROSPERO. Eleven databases were searched from inception to October 2018 for peer-reviewed, English-language, primary literature in any healthcare setting and for any medical condition. This included research on changing behavioural intentions (e.g. in simulated scenarios) and research measuring actual AP. All study designs/methodologies were included. Excluded were: grey literature and/or those which did not state a theory. Two reviewers independently extracted and quality assessed the data. The Theory Coding Scheme (TCS) evaluated the extent of the use of theory. RESULTS: Searches found 4227 potentially relevant papers after removal of duplicates. Screening of titles/abstracts led to dual assessment of 38 full-text papers. Ten (five quantitative, three qualitative and two mixed-methods) met the inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in the UK (n = 8), Canada (n = 1) and Sweden (n = 1), most in primary care settings (n = 9), targeting respiratory tract infections (n = 8), and medical doctors (n = 10). The most common theories used were Theory of Planned Behaviour (n = 7), Social Cognitive Theory (n = 5) and Operant Learning Theory (n = 5). The use of theory to inform the design and choice of intervention varied, with no optimal use as recommended in the TCS. CONCLUSIONS: This SR is the first to investigate theoretically based BCIs around AP. Few studies were identified; most were suboptimal in theory use. There is a need to consider how theory is used and reported and the systematic use of the TCS could help.
Authors: Hazel Parker; Julia Frost; Jo Day; Rob Bethune; Anu Kajamaa; Kieran Hand; Sophie Robinson; Karen Mattick Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-20 Impact factor: 3.752