A checklist to improve reporting of group-based behaviour-change interventions

Abstract

BackgroundPublished descriptions of group-based behaviour-change interventions (GB-BCIs) often omit design and delivery features specific to the group setting. This impedes the ability to compare behaviour-change interventions, synthesise evidence on their effectiveness and replicate effective interventions. The aim of this study was to develop a checklist of elements that should be described to ensure adequate reporting of GB-BCIs.MethodsA range of characteristics needed to replicate GB-BCIs were extracted from the literature and precisely defined. An abbreviated checklist and a coder manual were developed, pilot tested and refined. The final checklist and coder manual were used to identify the presence or absence of specified reporting elements in 30 published descriptions of GB-BCIs by two independent coders. Reliability of coding was assessed.ResultsThe checklist comprises 26 essential reporting elements, covering intervention design, intervention content, participant characteristics, and facilitator characteristics. Inter-rater reliability for identification of reporting elements was high (95 % agreement, Mean AC1 = 0.89).ConclusionThe checklist is a practical tool that can be used, alongside other reporting guidelines, to ensure comprehensive description and to assess reporting quality of GB-BCIs. It can also be helpful for designing group-based health interventions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2300-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

‘We're all in the same boat’: A qualitative study on how groups work in a diabetes prevention and management programme

“…However, such systematic reviews do not consider participants' own perceptions and experiences of the change processes. This is especially problematic when investigating change mechanisms operating in group interventions because descriptions of group characteristics (e.g., group composition, facilitator characteristics, or facilitation style) and of the logic model on which group design was based are often incomplete (Borek, Abraham, Smith, Greaves, & Tarrant, 2015;. This is especially problematic when investigating change mechanisms operating in group interventions because descriptions of group characteristics (e.g., group composition, facilitator characteristics, or facilitation style) and of the logic model on which group design was based are often incomplete (Borek, Abraham, Smith, Greaves, & Tarrant, 2015;.…”

Form of delivery as a key ‘active ingredient’ in behaviour change interventions

“…A comprehensive and inclusive FoD framework to aide intervention development is currently lacking. Based on the structure from TIDieR and other existing lists containing FoD elements and features (Borek, Abraham, Smith, Greaves, & Tarrant, ; Davidson et al ., ; Hoddinott, Allan, Avenell, & Britten, ; Webb, Joseph, Yardley, & Michie, ), we propose a preliminary framework in line with the above definition (Table ).…”

How do Small Groups Promote Behaviour Change? An Integrative Conceptual Review of Explanatory Mechanisms

“…For example, conflict in the groups (Nackers et al, 2015), establishment of specific group norms (Cruwys, Haslam, Fox, & McMahon, 2015) or degree of identification with the group (Wakefield, Bickley, & Sani, 2013). However, poor reporting of group characteristics in primary studies, methodological limitations of those studies, and the heterogeneous nature of the groups categorised as either having, or not having, particular characteristics make it difficult for meta-analyses to identify mechanisms of change in GB-BCIs (see Borek, Abraham, Smith, Greaves, & Tarrant, 2015;Borek et al, 2018). A theoretical understanding of potentially important factors in GB-BCIs is a prerequisite to experimental tests of optimal group characteristics and intervention effectiveness and to data synthesis, including metaanalyses that employ categorisation systems based on effectiveness evidence.…”

“…Smith, 1980) as group-specific facilitators of individual change. Yet, design descriptions (and, where available, logic models) of GB-BCIs almost never specify how group-specific change processes can be harnessed by the specified group design or facilitation strategies (Borek et al, 2015;Borek et al, 2018).…”