Cargando…

Do self- reported intentions predict clinicians' behaviour: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Implementation research is the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of clinical research findings into routine clinical practice. Several interventions have been shown to be effective in changing health care professionals' behaviour, but heterogeneity within...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Eccles, Martin P, Hrisos, Susan, Francis, Jill, Kaner, Eileen F, Dickinson, Heather O, Beyer, Fiona, Johnston, Marie
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2006
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1664582/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17118180
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-1-28
_version_ 1782131070752260096
author Eccles, Martin P
Hrisos, Susan
Francis, Jill
Kaner, Eileen F
Dickinson, Heather O
Beyer, Fiona
Johnston, Marie
author_facet Eccles, Martin P
Hrisos, Susan
Francis, Jill
Kaner, Eileen F
Dickinson, Heather O
Beyer, Fiona
Johnston, Marie
author_sort Eccles, Martin P
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Implementation research is the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of clinical research findings into routine clinical practice. Several interventions have been shown to be effective in changing health care professionals' behaviour, but heterogeneity within interventions, targeted behaviours, and study settings make generalisation difficult. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the 'active ingredients' in professional behaviour change strategies. Theories of human behaviour that feature an individual's "intention" to do something as the most immediate predictor of their behaviour have proved to be useful in non-clinical populations. As clinical practice is a form of human behaviour such theories may offer a basis for developing a scientific rationale for the choice of intervention to use in the implementation of new practice. The aim of this review was to explore the relationship between intention and behaviour in clinicians and how this compares to the intention-behaviour relationship in studies of non-clinicians. METHODS: We searched: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Science/Social science citation index, Current contents (social & behavioural med/clinical med), ISI conference proceedings, and Index to Theses. The reference lists of all included papers were checked manually. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they had: examined a clinical behaviour within a clinical context, included measures of both intention and behaviour, measured behaviour after intention, and explored this relationship quantitatively. All titles and abstracts retrieved by electronic searching were screened independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved by discussion. DISCUSSION: Ten studies were found that examined the relationship between intention and clinical behaviours in 1623 health professionals. The proportion of variance in behaviour explained by intention was of a similar magnitude to that found in the literature relating to non-health professionals. This was more consistently the case for studies in which intention-behaviour correspondence was good and behaviour was self-reported. Though firm conclusions are limited by a smaller literature, our findings are consistent with that of the non-health professional literature. This review, viewed in the context of the larger populations of studies, provides encouragement for the contention that there is a predictable relationship between the intentions of a health professional and their subsequent behaviour. However, there remain significant methodological challenges.
format Text
id pubmed-1664582
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2006
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-16645822006-11-30 Do self- reported intentions predict clinicians' behaviour: a systematic review Eccles, Martin P Hrisos, Susan Francis, Jill Kaner, Eileen F Dickinson, Heather O Beyer, Fiona Johnston, Marie Implement Sci Systematic Review BACKGROUND: Implementation research is the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of clinical research findings into routine clinical practice. Several interventions have been shown to be effective in changing health care professionals' behaviour, but heterogeneity within interventions, targeted behaviours, and study settings make generalisation difficult. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the 'active ingredients' in professional behaviour change strategies. Theories of human behaviour that feature an individual's "intention" to do something as the most immediate predictor of their behaviour have proved to be useful in non-clinical populations. As clinical practice is a form of human behaviour such theories may offer a basis for developing a scientific rationale for the choice of intervention to use in the implementation of new practice. The aim of this review was to explore the relationship between intention and behaviour in clinicians and how this compares to the intention-behaviour relationship in studies of non-clinicians. METHODS: We searched: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Science/Social science citation index, Current contents (social & behavioural med/clinical med), ISI conference proceedings, and Index to Theses. The reference lists of all included papers were checked manually. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they had: examined a clinical behaviour within a clinical context, included measures of both intention and behaviour, measured behaviour after intention, and explored this relationship quantitatively. All titles and abstracts retrieved by electronic searching were screened independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved by discussion. DISCUSSION: Ten studies were found that examined the relationship between intention and clinical behaviours in 1623 health professionals. The proportion of variance in behaviour explained by intention was of a similar magnitude to that found in the literature relating to non-health professionals. This was more consistently the case for studies in which intention-behaviour correspondence was good and behaviour was self-reported. Though firm conclusions are limited by a smaller literature, our findings are consistent with that of the non-health professional literature. This review, viewed in the context of the larger populations of studies, provides encouragement for the contention that there is a predictable relationship between the intentions of a health professional and their subsequent behaviour. However, there remain significant methodological challenges. BioMed Central 2006-11-21 /pmc/articles/PMC1664582/ /pubmed/17118180 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-1-28 Text en Copyright © 2006 Eccles et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Eccles, Martin P
Hrisos, Susan
Francis, Jill
Kaner, Eileen F
Dickinson, Heather O
Beyer, Fiona
Johnston, Marie
Do self- reported intentions predict clinicians' behaviour: a systematic review
title Do self- reported intentions predict clinicians' behaviour: a systematic review
title_full Do self- reported intentions predict clinicians' behaviour: a systematic review
title_fullStr Do self- reported intentions predict clinicians' behaviour: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Do self- reported intentions predict clinicians' behaviour: a systematic review
title_short Do self- reported intentions predict clinicians' behaviour: a systematic review
title_sort do self- reported intentions predict clinicians' behaviour: a systematic review
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1664582/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17118180
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-1-28
work_keys_str_mv AT ecclesmartinp doselfreportedintentionspredictcliniciansbehaviourasystematicreview
AT hrisossusan doselfreportedintentionspredictcliniciansbehaviourasystematicreview
AT francisjill doselfreportedintentionspredictcliniciansbehaviourasystematicreview
AT kanereileenf doselfreportedintentionspredictcliniciansbehaviourasystematicreview
AT dickinsonheathero doselfreportedintentionspredictcliniciansbehaviourasystematicreview
AT beyerfiona doselfreportedintentionspredictcliniciansbehaviourasystematicreview
AT johnstonmarie doselfreportedintentionspredictcliniciansbehaviourasystematicreview