Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2018. All rights reserved. Background The behavior change technique (BCT) taxonomy v1 is often used in systematic reviews for identifying active components of interventions. Its utility could be enhanced by linking BCTs to specific target behaviors and qualifying BCT delivery style. Purpose To determine whether behavioral targets and delivery styles of BCTs can be coded reliably and to determine the utility of coding these characteristics. Methods As part of a large systematic review of 142 smoking cessation trials, two researchers independently coded publicly and privately held intervention and comparator group materials, specifying the behavioral target (quitting, abstinence, medication adherence, or treatment engagement) and delivery style (tailored vs. not tailored; active participation vs. passive receipt) of each BCT. Results Researchers coded 3,843 BCTs, which were reliably attributed to behavioral targets (AC1 = 0.92, PABAK = 0.91). Tailoring (AC1 = 0.80, PABAK = 0.74) and participation (AC1 = 0.71, PABAK = 0.64) were also coded reliably. There was considerable variability between groups in quitting and abstinence BCTs (ranges: 0–41; 0–18) and in tailoring and participation (ranges: 0–20; 0–32), but less variability for medication adherence and treatment engagement (ranges: 0–6; 0–7). Conclusions Behavioral targets and delivery styles of BCTs can be reliably identified and occur with sufficient frequency in smoking cessation trials for inclusion in quantitative syntheses (e.g., meta-regression analyses). Systematic reviewers could consider adopting these methods to evaluate the impact of intervention components targeting different behaviors, as well as the benefits of different BCT delivery styles.

Original publication

DOI

10.1093/abm/kay068

Type

Journal article

Journal

Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Publication Date

01/01/2019

Volume

53

Pages

583 - 591