4.3 Article

Enhancing Reporting of Behavior Change Intervention Evaluations

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000231

Keywords

behavior change; evaluation; process evaluation; reporting standards; randomized controlled trials

Funding

  1. United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care of the South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC)
  2. United States Public Health Service [R01-MH58563]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many behavior change interventions for the prevention and treatment of HIV have been evaluated, but suboptimal reporting of evaluations hinders the accumulation of evidence and the replication of interventions. In this article, we address 4 practices contributing to this problem. First, detailed descriptions of the interventions and their implementation are often unavailable. Second, content of active control group content (such as usual care or support designed by researchers) often varies markedly between trials; yet, descriptions of this content are routinely omitted. Third, detailed process evaluations revealing the mechanisms by which interventions generate their effects, and among whom, frequently are not available. Fourth, there is a lack of replication in other contexts, which limits knowledge of external validity. This article advances recommendations made by an international group of scholars constituting the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER), which has developed brief guidance to journal editors to improve the reporting of evaluations of behavior change interventions, thereby serving as an addition to reporting statements such as CONSORT. Improved reporting standards would facilitate and accelerate the development of the science of behavior change and its application in implementation science to improve public health.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available