Dataset Information

Discriminant content validity of a theoretical domains framework questionnaire for use in implementation research.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To improve the implementation of innovations in healthcare settings, it is important to understand factors influencing healthcare professionals' behaviors. We aimed to develop a generic questionnaire in English and in Dutch assessing the 14 domains of behavioral determinants from the revised TDF (Cane et al., 2012) that can be tailored to suit different targets, actions, contexts, and times of interest, and to investigate questionnaire items' discriminant content validity.

Methods

We identified existing questionnaires including items assessing constructs within TDF domains and developed new items where needed. Nineteen judges allocated 79 items to one or more TDF domains. One-sample t-tests were used to examine the discriminant content validity of each item, i.e., whether items measured intended domains or whether items measured a combination of domains.

Results

We identified items judged to discriminately measure 11 out of 14 domains. Items measuring the domains Reinforcement, Goals, and Behavioral regulation were judged to measure a combination of domains.

Conclusions

We have developed a questionnaire in English and in Dutch able to discriminately assess the majority of TDF domains. The results partly support Cane et al.'s (2012) 14-domain validation of the TDF and suggest that Michie et al.'s (2005) 12-domain original version might be more applicable in developing a TDF-based questionnaire. The identified items provide a robust basis for developing a questionnaire to measure TDF-based determinants of healthcare professionals' implementation behaviors to suit different targets, actions, contexts, and times. Future research should investigate the concurrent and predictive validity and reliability of such a questionnaire in practice.

SUBMITTER: Huijg JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3896680 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Discriminant content validity of a theoretical domains framework questionnaire for use in implementation research.

Huijg Johanna M JM Gebhardt Winifred A WA Crone Mathilde R MR Dusseldorp Elise E Presseau Justin J

Implementation science : IS 20140115

<h4>Background</h4>To improve the implementation of innovations in healthcare settings, it is important to understand factors influencing healthcare professionals' behaviors. We aimed to develop a generic questionnaire in English and in Dutch assessing the 14 domains of behavioral determinants from the revised TDF (Cane et al., 2012) that can be tailored to suit different targets, actions, contexts, and times of interest, and to investigate questionnaire items' discriminant content validity.<h4> ...[more]

PMID: 24423394

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo be able to design effective strategies to improve healthcare professionals' implementation behaviors, a valid and reliable questionnaire is needed to assess potential implementation determinants. The present study describes the development of the Determinants of Implementation Behavior Questionnaire (DIBQ) and investigates the reliability and validity of this Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)-based questionnaire.MethodsThe DIBQ was developed to measure the potential behavioral determinants of the 12-domain version of the TDF (Michie et al., 2005). We identified existing questionnaires including items assessing constructs within TDF domains and developed new items where needed. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine whether the predefined structure of the TDF-based questionnaire was supported by the data. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to assess internal consistency reliability of the questionnaire, and domains' discriminant validity was investigated.ResultsWe developed an initial questionnaire containing 100 items assessing 12 domains. Results obtained from confirmatory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha resulted in the final questionnaire consisting of 93 items assessing 18 domains, explaining 63.3% of the variance, and internal consistency reliability values ranging from .68 to .93. Domains demonstrated good discriminant validity, although the domains 'Knowledge' and 'Skills' and the domains 'Skills' and 'Social/professional role and identity' were highly correlated.ConclusionsWe have developed a valid and reliable questionnaire that can be used to assess potential determinants of healthcare professional implementation behavior following the theoretical domains of the TDF. The DIBQ can be used by researchers and practitioners who are interested in identifying determinants of implementation behaviors in order to be able to develop effective strategies to improve healthcare professionals' implementation behaviors. Furthermore, the findings provide a novel validation of the TDF and indicate that the domain 'Environmental context and resources' might be divided into several environment-related domains.

Project description:BackgroundThe health care quality improvement movement is a complex enterprise. Implementing clinical quality initiatives requires attitude and behaviour change on the part of clinicians, but this has proven to be difficult. In an attempt to solve this kind of behavioural challenge, the theoretical domains framework (TDF) has been developed. The TDF consists of 14 domains from psychological and organisational theory said to influence behaviour change. No systematic research has been conducted into the ways in which clinical quality initiatives map on to the domains of the framework. We therefore conducted a qualitative mapping experiment to determine to what extent, and in what ways, the TDF is relevant to the implementation of clinical quality interventions.MethodsWe conducted a thematic synthesis of the qualitative literature exploring clinicians' perceptions of various clinical quality interventions. We analysed and synthesised 50 studies in total, in five domains of clinical quality interventions: clinical quality interventions in general, structural interventions, audit-type interventions, interventions aimed at making practice more evidence-based, and risk management interventions. Data were analysed thematically, followed by synthesis of these themes into categories and concepts, which were then mapped to the domains of the TDF.ResultsOur results suggest that the TDF is highly relevant to the implementation of clinical quality interventions. It can be used to map most, if not all, of the attitudinal and behavioural barriers and facilitators of uptake of clinical quality interventions. Each of these 14 domains appeared to be relevant to many different types of clinical quality interventions. One possible additional domain might relate to perceived trustworthiness of those instituting clinical quality interventions.ConclusionsThe TDF can be usefully applied to a wide range of clinical quality interventions. Because all 14 of the domains emerged as relevant, and we did not identify any obvious differences between different kinds of clinical quality interventions, our findings support an initially broad approach to identifying barriers and facilitators, followed by a "drilling down" to what is most contextually salient. In future, it may be possible to establish a model of clinical quality policy implementation using the TDF.

Project description:BackgroundImplementing new practices requires changes in the behaviour of relevant actors, and this is facilitated by understanding of the determinants of current and desired behaviours. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was developed by a collaboration of behavioural scientists and implementation researchers who identified theories relevant to implementation and grouped constructs from these theories into domains. The collaboration aimed to provide a comprehensive, theory-informed approach to identify determinants of behaviour. The first version was published in 2005, and a subsequent version following a validation exercise was published in 2012. This guide offers practical guidance for those who wish to apply the TDF to assess implementation problems and support intervention design. It presents a brief rationale for using a theoretical approach to investigate and address implementation problems, summarises the TDF and its development, and describes how to apply the TDF to achieve implementation objectives. Examples from the implementation research literature are presented to illustrate relevant methods and practical considerations.MethodsResearchers from Canada, the UK and Australia attended a 3-day meeting in December 2012 to build an international collaboration among researchers and decision-makers interested in the advancing use of the TDF. The participants were experienced in using the TDF to assess implementation problems, design interventions, and/or understand change processes. This guide is an output of the meeting and also draws on the authors' collective experience. Examples from the implementation research literature judged by authors to be representative of specific applications of the TDF are included in this guide.ResultsWe explain and illustrate methods, with a focus on qualitative approaches, for selecting and specifying target behaviours key to implementation, selecting the study design, deciding the sampling strategy, developing study materials, collecting and analysing data, and reporting findings of TDF-based studies. Areas for development include methods for triangulating data, e.g. from interviews, questionnaires and observation and methods for designing interventions based on TDF-based problem analysis.ConclusionsWe offer this guide to the implementation community to assist in the application of the TDF to achieve implementation objectives. Benefits of using the TDF include the provision of a theoretical basis for implementation studies, good coverage of potential reasons for slow diffusion of evidence into practice and a method for progressing from theory-based investigation to intervention.

Project description:BackgroundSuccessful research is frequently hampered by poor study recruitment, especially in community settings and with participants who are women and their children. Health visitors (HVs) and community midwives (CMs) are well placed to invite young families, and pregnant and postnatal women to take part in such research, but little is known about how best to support these health professionals to do this effectively.AimThis study uses the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to explore the factors that influence whether HVs and CMs invite eligible patients to take part in research opportunities.MethodHVs (n = 39) and CMs (n = 22) working in four NHS Trusts and one community partnership in England completed an anonymous, online survey with open-ended questions about their experiences of asking eligible patients to take part in the research. Qualitative data were analysed using directed content analysis and inductive coding to identify specific barriers and enablers to patient recruitment within each of the 14 theoretical domains.FindingsSix key TDF domains accounted for 81% of all coded responses. These were (a) environmental context and resources; (b) beliefs about capabilities; (c) social/professional role and identity; (d) social influences; (e) goals; (f) knowledge. Key barriers to approaching patients to participate in the research were time and resource constraints, perceived role conflict, conflicting priorities, and particularly for HVs, negative social influences from patients and researchers. Enablers included feeling confident to approach patients, positive influence from peers, managers and researchers, beliefs in the relevance of this behaviour to health care and practice and good knowledge about the study procedures, its rationale and the research topic. The findings suggest that to improve research recruitment involving HVs and CMs, a package of interventions is needed to address the barriers and leverage the enablers to participant approach.

Project description:BackgroundIn 2009, Damschroder et al. developed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which provides a comprehensive listing of constructs thought to influence implementation. This systematic review assesses the extent to which the CFIR's use in implementation research fulfills goals set forth by Damschroder et al. in terms of breadth of use, depth of application, and contribution to implementation research.MethodsWe searched Scopus and Web of Science for publications that cited the original CFIR publication by Damschroder et al. (Implement Sci 4:50, 2009) and downloaded each unique result for review. After applying exclusion criteria, the final articles were empirical studies published in peer-review journals that used the CFIR in a meaningful way (i.e., used the CFIR to guide data collection, measurement, coding, analysis, and/or reporting). A framework analysis approach was used to guide abstraction and synthesis of the included articles.ResultsTwenty-six of 429 unique articles (6 %) met inclusion criteria. We found great breadth in CFIR application; the CFIR was applied across a wide variety of study objectives, settings, and units of analysis. There was also variation in the method of included studies (mixed methods (n = 13); qualitative (n = 10); quantitative (n = 3)). Depth of CFIR application revealed some areas for improvement. Few studies (n = 3) reported justification for selection of CFIR constructs used; the majority of studies (n = 14) used the CFIR to guide data analysis only; and few studies investigated any outcomes (n = 11). Finally, reflections on the contribution of the CFIR to implementation research were scarce.ConclusionsOur results indicate that the CFIR has been used across a wide range of studies, though more in-depth use of the CFIR may help advance implementation science. To harness its potential, researchers should consider how to most meaningfully use the CFIR. Specific recommendations for applying the CFIR include explicitly justifying selection of CFIR constructs; integrating the CFIR throughout the research process (in study design, data collection, and analysis); and appropriately using the CFIR given the phase of implementation of the research (e.g., if the research is post-implementation, using the CFIR to link determinants of implementation to outcomes).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Most pediatric studies do not include parent stakeholders in the design of the intervention itself and many pediatric mobile health (mHealth) interventions are not meaningfully disseminated after the trial period ends. Consequently, the consumer desire for mobile apps targeting pediatric health behavior is likely to be met by commercial products that are not based in theory or evidence and may not take stakeholder preferences into account. OBJECTIVE:The aim was to assess parent preference for mobile app features that map onto specific Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) elements. METHODS:This study was a crowdsourced social validity study of 183 parents who were asked to rate their preferences for mobile app features that correspond to elements of the TDF. The TDF organizes a large number of theoretical models and constructs into three components: (1) capability, (2) motivation, and (3) opportunity. Parents of children were recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk. RESULTS:The majority of participants were Caucasian and mean age was 36.9 (SD 8.0) years. Results revealed broad acceptability of communication, motivation, and opportunity domains. However, the degree to which each domain was valued varied within behavioral category. Parents demonstrated a preference for increasing procedural knowledge for physical activity and diet behaviors over sleep (F2,545=5.18, P=.006). Similarly, parents valued self-monitoring as more important for physical activity than sleep (F2,546=4.04, P=.02). When asked about the value of features to help children develop skills, parents preferred those features for dietary behavior over sleep (F2,546=3.57, P=.03). Parents perceived that goal-setting features would be most useful for physical activity over sleep and diet (F2,545=5.30, P=.005). Incentive features within the app were seen as most useful for physical activity over sleep (F2,546=4.34, P=.01). CONCLUSIONS:This study presents a low-cost strategy for involving a large number of stakeholders in the discussion of how health behavior theory should be applied in a mHealth intervention. Our approach is innovative in that it took a scientific framework (ie, TDF) and made it digestible to parents so that they could then provide their opinions about features that might appear in a future app. Our survey items discriminated between various health behaviors allowing stakeholders to communicate the different health behaviors that they would like a TDF feature to change. Moreover, we were able to develop a set of consumer opinions about features that were directly linked to elements of the TDF.

Project description:BackgroundThe Canadian CT Head Rule was prospectively derived and validated to assist clinicians with diagnostic decision-making regarding the use of computed tomography (CT) in adult patients with minor head injury. A recent intervention trial failed to demonstrate a decrease in the rate of head CTs following implementation of the rule in Canadian emergency departments. Yet, the same intervention, which included a one-hour educational session and reminders at the point of requisition, was successful in reducing cervical spine imaging rates in the same emergency departments. The reason for the varied effect of the intervention across these two behaviours is unclear. There is an increasing appreciation for the use of theory to conduct process evaluations to better understand how strategies are linked with outcomes in implementation trials. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) has been used to explore health professional behaviour and to design behaviour change interventions but, to date, has not been used to guide a theory-based process evaluation. In this proof of concept study, we explored whether the TDF could be used to guide a retrospective process evaluation to better understand emergency physicians' responses to the interventions employed in the Canadian CT Head Rule trial.MethodsA semi-structured interview guide, based on the 12 domains from the TDF, was used to conduct telephone interviews with project leads and physician participants from the intervention sites in the Canadian CT Head Rule trial. Two reviewers independently coded the anonymised interview transcripts using the TDF as a coding framework. Relevant domains were identified by: the presence of conflicting beliefs within a domain; the frequency of beliefs; and the likely strength of the impact of a belief on the behaviour.ResultsEight physicians from four of the intervention sites in the Canadian CT Head Rule trial participated in the interviews. Barriers likely to assist with understanding physicians' responses to the intervention in the trial were identified in six of the theoretical domains: beliefs about consequences; beliefs about capabilities; behavioural regulation; memory, attention and decision processes; environmental context and resources; and social influences. Despite knowledge that the Canadian CT Head Rule was highly sensitive and reliable for identifying clinically important brain injuries and strong beliefs about the benefits for using the rule, a number of barriers were identified that may have prevented physicians from consistently applying the rule.ConclusionThis proof of concept study demonstrates the use of the TDF as a guiding framework to design a retrospective theory-based process evaluation. There is a need for further development and testing of methods for using the TDF to guide theory-based process evaluations running alongside behaviour change intervention trials.

Dataset Information

Discriminant content validity of a theoretical domains framework questionnaire for use in implementation research.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Discriminant content validity of a theoretical domains framework questionnaire for use in implementation research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets