2015
DOI: 10.1080/08870446.2014.1001392
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing treatment-as-usual provided to control groups in adherence trials: Exploring the use of an open-ended questionnaire for identifying behaviour change techniques

Abstract: This study suggests that the TAU open-ended questionnaire is a feasible and reliable tool to capture active content of support provided to control participants in a multicentre adherence intervention trial. Considerable variability in the number of BCTs provided to control patients was observed, illustrating the importance of reliably collecting and accurately reporting control group support.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
31
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…suggested using an open-ended questionnaire for identifying behavior change techniques to assess treatment-as-usual (control groups; Oberje, Dima, Pijnappel, Prins, & de Bruin, 2015), as standard of care Table 2). AC received a stroke brochure.…”
Section: Types Of Control Groupsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…suggested using an open-ended questionnaire for identifying behavior change techniques to assess treatment-as-usual (control groups; Oberje, Dima, Pijnappel, Prins, & de Bruin, 2015), as standard of care Table 2). AC received a stroke brochure.…”
Section: Types Of Control Groupsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This can even the playing field with respect to time and effort, address healthcare provider, and/or participant concerns with randomization, and justify randomization with the potential for benefit with assignment to either treatment group. Some researchers have suggested using an open‐ended questionnaire for identifying behavior change techniques to assess treatment‐as‐usual (control groups; Oberje, Dima, Pijnappel, Prins, & de Bruin, ), as standard of care has considerable variation, is reported with little or no details, and can potentially affect study outcomes (Ayling, Brierley, Johnson, Heller, & Eiser, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is evidence to suggest that health service interventions lacking in theoretical underpinning can hamper the translation of research into practice, affecting the design, success, replicability and improvement of interventions [6]. Furthermore, interventions which are lacking in comprehensive description also impact negatively on replicability, evaluation, implementation and improvement [7]. If we accept that healthcare professional practice is made up of a series of complex behaviours, with CPD being a key type of behaviour change intervention, it follows that developing a greater understanding of the theory, methods and techniques involved in complex behaviour change could facilitate the design and effectiveness of CPD.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If we accept that healthcare professional practice is made up of a series of complex behaviours, with CPD being a key type of behaviour change intervention, it follows that developing a greater understanding of the theory, methods and techniques involved in complex behaviour change could facilitate the design and effectiveness of CPD. Considering training interventions in relation to the BCTs (which are the basic 'active' ingredients of an intervention) present, we argue, will add an extra dimension to how we characterise CPD training interventions and would go some way to addressing the deficit in comprehensive intervention descriptions and therefore support improvement in quality [7].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As Morrissey and colleagues identify, reporting of methodology and results is often limited in ways that prevent replication and a clear synthesis of evidence (Morrissey et al, 2017). This includes poor reporting, coding and analysis of control or treatment as usual conditions (de Bruin et al, 2010;Oberjé, Dima, Pijnappel, Prins, & de Bruin, 2015). With the increasing mandatory use of reporting standard statements (Boutron et al, 2008;Hoffmann et al, 2014;Vandenbroucke et al, 2014), it is likely that the quality of evidence reporting will improve.…”
Section: A Cumulative Evidence Basementioning
confidence: 99%