Dataset Information

Development of tools to study personal weight control strategies: OxFAB taxonomy.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To describe the development of the Oxford Food and Activity Behaviors (OxFAB) taxonomy and questionnaire to explore the cognitive and behavioral strategies used by individuals during weight management attempts.

Methods

The taxonomy was constructed through a qualitative analysis of existing resources and a review of existing behavior change taxonomies and theories. The taxonomy was translated into a questionnaire to identify strategies used by individuals. Think-aloud interviews were conducted to test the face/concept validity of the questionnaire, and test-retest reliability was assessed in a sample of 138 participants.

Results

The OxFAB taxonomy consists of 117 strategies grouped into 23 domains. Compared to taxonomies used to describe interventions, around half of the domains and strategies identified are unique to the OxFAB taxonomy. The OxFAB questionnaire consists of 117 questions, one for each strategy from the taxonomy. Test-retest resulted in a mean PABAK score of 0.61 (SD 0.15). Questions were revised where appropriate.

Conclusions

The OxFAB taxonomy and questionnaire provide a conceptual framework to identify the cognitive and behavioral strategies used by individuals during attempts at weight control.

SUBMITTER: Hartmann-Boyce J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4744943 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Sedentary behaviour (SB) has distinct deleterious health outcomes, yet there is no consensus on best practice for measurement. This study aimed to identify the optimal self-report tool for population surveillance of SB, using a systematic framework. DESIGN:A framework, TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST), consisting of four domains (type of assessment, recall period, temporal unit and assessment period), was developed based on a systematic inventory of existing tools. The inventory was achieved through a systematic review of studies reporting SB and tracing back to the original description. A systematic review of the accuracy and sensitivity to change of these tools was then mapped against TASST domains. DATA SOURCES:Systematic searches were conducted via EBSCO, reference lists and expert opinion. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:The inventory included tools measuring SB in adults that could be self-completed at one sitting, and excluded tools measuring SB in specific populations or contexts. The systematic review included studies reporting on the accuracy against an objective measure of SB and/or sensitivity to change of a tool in the inventory. RESULTS:The systematic review initially identified 32 distinct tools (141 questions), which were used to develop the TASST framework. Twenty-two studies evaluated accuracy and/or sensitivity to change representing only eight taxa. Assessing SB as a sum of behaviours and using a previous day recall were the most promising features of existing tools. Accuracy was poor for all existing tools, with underestimation and overestimation of SB. There was a lack of evidence about sensitivity to change. CONCLUSIONS:Despite the limited evidence, mapping existing SB tools onto the TASST framework has enabled informed recommendations to be made about the most promising features for a surveillance tool, identified aspects on which future research and development of SB surveillance tools should focus. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROPSPERO)/CRD42014009851.

Project description:BackgroundResearchers developing personal health tools employ a range of approaches to involve prospective users in design and development.ObjectiveThe aim of this paper was to develop a validated measure of the human- or user-centeredness of design and development processes for personal health tools.MethodsWe conducted a psychometric analysis of data from a previous systematic review of the design and development processes of 348 personal health tools. Using a conceptual framework of user-centered design, our team of patients, caregivers, health professionals, tool developers, and researchers analyzed how specific practices in tool design and development might be combined and used as a measure. We prioritized variables according to their importance within the conceptual framework and validated the resultant measure using principal component analysis with Varimax rotation, classical item analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis.ResultsWe retained 11 items in a 3-factor structure explaining 68% of the variance in the data. The Cronbach alpha was .72. Confirmatory factor analysis supported our hypothesis of a latent construct of user-centeredness. Items were whether or not: (1) patient, family, caregiver, or surrogate users were involved in the steps that help tool developers understand users or (2) develop a prototype, (3) asked their opinions, (4) observed using the tool or (5) involved in steps intended to evaluate the tool, (6) the process had 3 or more iterative cycles, (7) changes between cycles were explicitly reported, (8) health professionals were asked their opinion and (9) consulted before the first prototype was developed or (10) between initial and final prototypes, and (11) a panel of other experts was involved.ConclusionsThe User-Centered Design 11-item measure (UCD-11) may be used to quantitatively document the user/human-centeredness of design and development processes of patient-centered tools. By building an evidence base about such processes, we can help ensure that tools are adapted to people who will use them, rather than requiring people to adapt to tools.