In this paper, we introduce the Intervention Mapping (IM) taxonomy of behaviour change methods and its potential to be developed into a coding taxonomy. That is, although IM and its taxonomy of behaviour change methods are not in fact new, because IM was originally developed as a tool for intervention development, this potential was not immediately apparent. Second, in explaining the IM taxonomy and defining the relevant constructs, we call attention to the existence of parameters for effectiveness of methods, and explicate the related distinction between theory-based methods and practical applications and the probability that poor translation of methods may lead to erroneous conclusions as to method-effectiveness. Third, we recommend a minimal set of intervention characteristics that may be reported when intervention descriptions and evaluations are published. Specifying these characteristics can greatly enhance the quality of our meta-analyses and other literature syntheses. In conclusion, the dynamics of behaviour change are such that any taxonomy of methods of behaviour change needs to acknowledge the importance of, and provide instruments for dealing with, three conditions for effectiveness for behaviour change methods. For a behaviour change method to be effective: (1) it must target a determinant that predicts behaviour; (2) it must be able to change that determinant; (3) it must be translated into a practical application in a way that preserves the parameters for effectiveness and fits with the target population, culture, and context. Thus, taxonomies of methods of behaviour change must distinguish the specific determinants that are targeted, practical, specific applications, and the theory-based methods they embody. In addition, taxonomies should acknowledge that the lists of behaviour change methods will be used by, and should be used by, intervention developers. Ideally, the taxonomy should be readily usable for this goal; but alternatively, it should be clear how the information in the taxonomy can be used in practice. The IM taxonomy satisfies these requirements, and it would be beneficial if other taxonomies would be extended to also meet these needs.

Background: The ultimate impact of a health innovation depends not only on its effectiveness but also on its reach in the population and the extent to which it is implemented with high levels of completeness and fidelity. Implementation science has emerged as the potential solution to the failure to translate evidence from research into effective practice and policy evident in many fields. Implementation scientists have developed many frameworks, theories and models, which describe implementation determinants, processes, or outcomes; yet, there is little guidance about how these can inform the development or selection of implementation strategies (methods or techniques used to improve adoption, implementation, sustainment, and scale-up of interventions) ( 1 , 2 ). To move the implementation science field forward and to provide a practical tool to apply the knowledge in this field, we describe a systematic process for planning or selecting implementation strategies: Implementation Mapping. Methods: Implementation Mapping is based on Intervention Mapping (a six-step protocol that guides the design of multi-level health promotion interventions and implementation strategies) and expands on Intervention Mapping step 5. It includes insights from both the implementation science field and Intervention Mapping. Implementation Mapping involves five tasks: (1) conduct an implementation needs assessment and identify program adopters and implementers; (2) state adoption and implementation outcomes and performance objectives, identify determinants, and create matrices of change objectives; (3) choose theoretical methods (mechanisms of change) and select or design implementation strategies; (4) produce implementation protocols and materials; and (5) evaluate implementation outcomes. The tasks are iterative with the planner circling back to previous steps throughout this process to ensure all adopters and implementers, outcomes, determinants, and objectives are addressed. Discussion: Implementation Mapping provides a systematic process for developing strategies to improve the adoption, implementation, and maintenance of evidence-based interventions in real-world settings.

No abstract

Purpose This study tested the effects of a theory-based middle-school HIV, STI, and pregnancy prevention program, It’s Your Game: Keep it Real (IYG), in delaying sexual behavior. We hypothesized that the IYG intervention would decrease the number of adolescents who initiated sexual activity by the 9th grade compared to those in the comparison schools. Methods The target population was English-speaking middle schoolers from a large urban predominantly African American and Hispanic school district in Southeast Texas. Ten middle schools were randomly assigned either to receive the intervention or to the comparison condition. Seventh-grade students were recruited and followed through 9th grade. The IYG intervention comprises 12 seventh-grade and 12 eighth-grade lessons that integrate group-based classroom activities with computer-based instruction and personal journaling. Ninth-grade follow-up surveys were completed by 907 students (92% of the defined cohort). The primary hypothesis tested was that the intervention would decrease the number of adolescents who initiated sexual activity by the 9th grade compared to those in the comparison schools. Results Almost one-third (29.9%, n=509) of those in the comparison condition initiated sex by 9th grade compared to almost one-quarter (23.4%, n=308) of those in the intervention condition. After adjusting for covariates, students in the comparison condition were 1.29 times more likely to initiate sex by the 9th grade than those in the intervention condition. Conclusions A theory-driven multi-component, curriculum-based intervention can delay sexual initiation up to 24 months; can have impact on specific types of sexual behavior such as initiation of oral and anal sex; and may be especially effective with females. Future research must explore the generalizabilty of these results.

Evidence-informed health intervention planning that incorporates theoretical and empirical evidence and engages key stakeholders and community members or patients in the planning process results in interventions that are more effective. Nevertheless, exactly how and when to use evidence, theory, and community-based participation during planning represents a challenge. In this Perspective, we describe Intervention Mapping (IM), a framework for theory- and evidence-based health promotion program planning that addresses this challenge by providing a systematic and stepwise approach to planning interventions. IM has been used to develop health promotion interventions and implementation strategies in community and clinical settings globally, with over 1000 published articles employing the framework. In this Perspective, we also highlight recent and innovative applications of IM described in the articles of the Frontiers in Public Health Special Topic on IM. We conclude by discussing new directions in the application of IM including novel methods for identifying determinants of behavior and environmental conditions, the application of IM for planning implementation strategies, and IM for adaptation of evidence-based programs in new settings.

Causes for loss-to-follow-up, including early refusals of and stopping antiretroviral therapy (ART), in Malawi’s Option B+ program are poorly understood. This study examines the main barriers and facilitators to uptake and adherence to ART under Option B+. In depth interviews were conducted with HIV-infected women who were pregnant or postpartum in Lilongwe, Malawi (N = 65). Study participants included women who refused ART initiation (N = 10), initiated ART and then stopped (N = 26), and those who initiated ART and remained on treatment (N = 29). The barriers to ART initiation were varied and included concerns about partner support, feeling healthy, and needing time to think. The main reasons for stopping ART included side effects and lack of partner support. A substantial number of women started ART after initially refusing or stopping ART. There were several facilitators for re-starting ART, including encouragement from community health workers, side effects subsiding, decline in health, change in partner, and fear of future sickness. Amongst those who remained on ART, desire to prevent transmission and improve health were the most influential facilitators. Reasons for refusing and stopping ART were varied. ART-related side effects and feeling healthy were common barriers to ART initiation and adherence. Providing consistent pre-ART counseling, early support for patients experiencing side effects, and targeted efforts to bring women who stop treatment back into care may improve long term health outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract