A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems

Designing interventions to change behaviour and improve implementation first requires understanding the influences on current and desired behaviours in the context in which they occur. This can be facilitated through the application of evidence-based theories and frameworks from behavioural science. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) has been applied to explore barriers and enablers to implementing change in behaviours from antibiotic prescribing to vaccination uptake. The TDF is linked to the Behaviour Change Wheel and Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy, which specify different types of behaviour change strategies. This facilitates decision-making during intervention design and supports more systematic, transparent, and theory-based development of implementation interventions. However, the TDF does not specify relationships between construct domains, and some argue that the TDF focuses predominantly on individual rather than organizational behaviour change. This has led the TDF to often be used alongside other implementation frameworks, such as the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Behaviour change is key to increasing the uptake of evidence into healthcare practice. Designing behaviour-change interventions first requires problem analysis, ideally informed by theory. Yet the large number of partly overlapping theories of behaviour makes it difficult to select the most appropriate theory. The need for an overarching theoretical framework of behaviour change was addressed in research in which 128 explanatory constructs from 33 theories of behaviour were identified and grouped. The resulting Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) appears to be a helpful basis for investigating implementation problems. Research groups in several countries have conducted TDF-based studies. It seems timely to bring together the experience of these teams in a thematic series to demonstrate further applications and to report key developments. This overview article describes the TDF, provides a brief critique of the framework, and introduces this thematic series.In a brief review to assess the extent of TDF-based research, we identified 133 papers that cite the framework. Of these, 17 used the TDF as the basis for empirical studies to explore health professionals’ behaviour. The identified papers provide evidence of the impact of the TDF on implementation research. Two major strengths of the framework are its theoretical coverage and its capacity to elicit beliefs that could signify key mediators of behaviour change. The TDF provides a useful conceptual basis for assessing implementation problems, designing interventions to enhance healthcare practice, and understanding behaviour-change processes. We discuss limitations and research challenges and introduce papers in this series.

BackgroundOver 60 implementation frameworks exist. Using multiple frameworks may help researchers to address multiple study purposes, levels, and degrees of theoretical heritage and operationalizability; however, using multiple frameworks may result in unnecessary complexity and redundancy if doing so does not address study needs. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) are both well-operationalized, multi-level implementation determinant frameworks derived from theory. As such, the rationale for using the frameworks in combination (i.e., CFIR + TDF) is unclear. The objective of this systematic review was to elucidate the rationale for using CFIR + TDF by (1) describing studies that have used CFIR + TDF, (2) how they used CFIR + TDF, and (2) their stated rationale for using CFIR + TDF.MethodsWe undertook a systematic review to identify studies that mentioned both the CFIR and the TDF, were written in English, were peer-reviewed, and reported either a protocol or results of an empirical study in MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, or Google Scholar. We then abstracted data into a matrix and analyzed it qualitatively, identifying salient themes.FindingsWe identified five protocols and seven completed studies that used CFIR + TDF. CFIR + TDF was applied to studies in several countries, to a range of healthcare interventions, and at multiple intervention phases; used many designs, methods, and units of analysis; and assessed a variety of outcomes. Three studies indicated that using CFIR + TDF addressed multiple study purposes. Six studies indicated that using CFIR + TDF addressed multiple conceptual levels. Four studies did not explicitly state their rationale for using CFIR + TDF.ConclusionsDifferences in the purposes that authors of the CFIR (e.g., comprehensive set of implementation determinants) and the TDF (e.g., intervention development) propose help to justify the use of CFIR + TDF. Given that the CFIR and the TDF are both multi-level frameworks, the rationale that using CFIR + TDF is needed to address multiple conceptual levels may reflect potentially misleading conventional wisdom. On the other hand, using CFIR + TDF may more fully define the multi-level nature of implementation. To avoid concerns about unnecessary complexity and redundancy, scholars who use CFIR + TDF and combinations of other frameworks should specify how the frameworks contribute to their study.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42015027615

The suicidal process is a complex phenomenon involving multiple intertwined factors, which makes its prevention particularly challenging. As evidence-based suicide prevention interventions evolve and consolidate, it becomes increasingly important to ensure that effective interventions are efficiently implemented in practice and translated into the quality programs and care that benefit people at risk of suicidal behavior.

Bridging the research to practice gap in transfusion: the need for a multidisciplinary and evidence-based approach.

BackgroundImplementation researchers often combine the Theoretical Domain Framework (TDF) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) in their studies. However there is some debate on the merits of using multiple frameworks—whether they contribute to results or provide superfluous analysis. Our recent research combined the TDF and CFIR to identify determinants to widespread incorporation of patient held medication lists (PHML) in healthcare practice. The aim of this report is to provide guidance on the use of the TDF and CFIR; by assessing the degree of overlap between the two frameworks in their application to interviews about PHML.MethodsSemi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals (HCPs) and non HCPs (people taking multiple medicines and caregivers).Interview data were transcribed and analysed using the TDF and CFIR. Within paired domains substantial intersection/overlap across constructs and domains within the two frameworks was classified as > 75% of coding references, consistent intersection/overlap was defined as > 50% and ≤ 75%, average intersection/overlap was defined as ≤ 50% and > 25% and non-substantial intersection/overlap was classified as ≤ 25% of coding references.ResultsInterview data were collected from 39 participants – 21 HCPs and 18 non HCPs.Mapping of TDF domains to CFIR domains/constructs identified key determinants in six TDF domains: Environmental context & resources, Beliefs about capabilities, Beliefs about consequences, Social influences, Behavioural regulation and Social/professional role & identity; and five CFIR domains: Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individual and Process. A pattern of substantial intersection/overlap in coding emerged with broad TDF domains such as Environmental context & resources often linked to well-defined CFIR domains and constructs (e.g. design quality & packaging within Intervention Characteristics). Broad CFIR constructs such as knowledge & beliefs about intervention within Characteristics of Individuals also linked to more descriptive TDF domains like Beliefs about capabilities. In addition there was some unexpected non-substantial intersection/overlap in coding with the TDF domain Social influences less frequently linked to the CFIR Inner Setting domain and constructs such as networks and communications.ConclusionsIdentifying intersections/overlaps in coding between CFIR and TDF can assist interpretation of findings in implementation research. The strengths of each framework were exploited in a reciprocal process which provided more information to broad/poorly defined domains and enabled identification of implementation determinants and innovation determinants.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-023-00466-8.

The use of theory is recommended to support interventions to promote implementation of evidence-based practices. However, there are multiple models of behaviour change which can be complex and lack comprehensiveness and are therefore difficult to understand and operationalize. The Theoretical Domains Framework sought to address these problems by synthesizing 33 models of behaviour or behaviour change. Given that it is 15 years since the first publication of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), it is timely to reflect on how the framework has been applied in practice. The objective of this review is to identify and narratively synthesize papers in which the TDF, (including frameworks that incorporate the TDF) have been used have been used to develop implementation interventions. We searched MEDLINE, PsychINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane databases using the terms: 'theoretical domains framework*' or TDF or Capability, Opportunity, Motivation to Behaviour (COM-B) or 'behav* change wheel' or 'BCW' AND implement* or improv* or quality or guideline* or intervention* or practice* or EBP or 'evidence based practice' and conducted citation and key author searches. The included papers were those that used any version of the TDF published from 2005 onwards. The included papers were subject to narrative synthesis. A total of 3540 papers were identified and 60 were included. Thirty-two papers reported intervention design only and 28 reported intervention design and testing. Despite over 3000 citations there has been limited application to the point of designing interventions to support the best practice. In particular use of the framework has not been tried or tested in non-western countries and barely used in non-primary or acute care settings. Authors have applied the framework to assess barriers and facilitators successfully but reporting of the process of selection of behaviour change techniques and intervention design thereafter was variable. Despite over three thousand citations of the framework there has been limited application to the point of designing interventions to support best practice. The framework is barely used in non-western countries or beyond primary or acute care settings. A stated purpose of the framework was to make psychological theory accessible to researchers and practitioners alike; if this is to be fully achieved, further guidance is needed on the application of the framework beyond the point of assessment of barriers and facilitators.

BackgroundStress urinary incontinence during pregnancy is closely related to the occurrence of postpartum and long-term urinary incontinence. Early pelvic floor management is of great significance in promoting the recovery of pelvic floor tissues in pregnant women. However, effective management of urinary incontinence is far from achievable owing to the low adherence of pregnant women in partaking in pelvic floor rehabilitation. As a comprehensive framework for behavioural theory, the Theoretical Domain Framework allows for comprehensive identification of behavioural determinants. Using Theoretical Domain Framework, this study aimed to identify barriers and enablers of pelvic floor rehabilitation behaviours in pregnant women with stress urinary incontinence.MethodsA descriptive, qualitative design was used in this study. Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with pregnant women with stress urinary incontinence based on the Theoretical Domain Framework. The data were analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive methods.ResultsTwenty pregnant women with stress urinary incontinence were interviewed. Seven themes were summarised and used to explain the pelvic floor rehabilitation behaviours of pregnant women with stress urinary incontinence. The seven themes were (1) individual knowledge and experience of pelvic floor management, (2) judgments about expected outcomes, (3) interactions of interpersonal situations, (4) environment, resources, and decision-making processes, (5) personal goal-setting and efforts towards behaviour change, (6) emotional influences on decision-making, and (7) personal characteristics. Besides the "Optimism" domain, 13 of the 14 Theoretical Domains Framework domains were found to influence pregnant patients' pelvic floor rehabilitation behaviours after deductive mapping of themes to the Theoretical Domains Framework. In addition, the inductive analysis generated a theme of personal characteristics that did not map to any of the Theoretical Domains Framework domains.ConclusionsThe pelvic floor rehabilitation behaviours of pregnant women with stress urinary incontinence are complex and are affected by many factors. The findings confirm the need for multiple interventions to support pelvic floor management in pregnant women with stress urinary incontinence, focusing on enhancing knowledge and skills in pelvic floor care and using appropriate behaviour change techniques (such as prompts) to provide a supportive environment.

BackgroundA key component of the implementation process is identifying potential barriers and facilitators that need to be addressed. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) is one of the most commonly used frameworks for this purpose. When applying the TDF, it is critical to understand the context in which behaviours occur. Intersectionality, which accounts for the interface between social identity factors (e.g. age, gender) and structures of power (e.g. ageism, sexism), offers a novel approach to understanding how context shapes individual decision-making and behaviour. We aimed to develop a tool to be used alongside applications of the TDF to incorporate an intersectionality lens when identifying implementation barriers and enablers.MethodsAn interdisciplinary Framework Committee (n = 17) prioritized the TDF as one of three models, theories, and frameworks (MTFs) to enhance with an intersectional lens through a modified Delphi approach. In collaboration with the wider Framework Committee, a subgroup considered all 14 TDF domains and iteratively developed recommendations for incorporating intersectionality considerations within the TDF and its domains. An iterative approach aimed at building consensus was used to finalize recommendations.ResultsConsensus on how to apply an intersectionality lens to the TDF was achieved after 12 rounds of revision. Two overarching considerations for using the intersectionality alongside the TDF were developed by the group as well as two to four prompts for each TDF domain to guide interview topic guides. Considerations and prompts were designed to assist users to reflect on how individual identities and structures of power may play a role in barriers and facilitators to behaviour change and subsequent intervention implementation.ConclusionsThrough an expert-consensus approach, we developed a tool for applying an intersectionality lens alongside the TDF. Considering the role of intersecting social factors when identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing research evidence may result in more targeted and effective interventions that better reflect the realities of those involved.

BackgroundSepsis has a mortality rate of 40 %, which can be halved if the evidence-based “Sepsis Six” care bundle is implemented within 1 h. UK audit shows low implementation rates. Interventions to improve this have had minimal effects. Quality improvement programmes could be further developed by using theoretical frameworks (Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)) to modify existing interventions by identifying influences on clinical behaviour and selecting appropriate content. The aim of this study was to illustrate using this process to modify an intervention designed using plan-do-study-act (P-D-S-A) cycles that had achieved partial success in improving Sepsis Six implementation in one hospital.MethodsFactors influencing implementation were investigated using the TDF to analyse interviews with 34 health professionals. The nursing team who developed and facilitated the intervention used the data to select modifications using the Behaviour Change Technique (BCT) Taxonomy (v1) and the APEASE criteria: affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, safety and equity.ResultsFive themes were identified as influencing implementation and guided intervention modification. These were:(1) “knowing what to do and why” (TDF domains knowledge, social/professional role and identity); (2) “risks and benefits” (beliefs about consequences), e.g. fear of harming patients through fluid overload acting as a barrier to implementation versus belief in the bundle’s effectiveness acting as a lever to implementation; (3) “working together” (social influences, social/professional role and identity), e.g. team collaboration acting as a lever versus doctor/nurse conflict acting as a barrier; (4) “empowerment and support” (beliefs about capabilities, social/professional role and identity, behavioural regulation, social influences), e.g. involving staff in intervention development acting as a lever versus lack of confidence to challenge colleagues’ decisions not to implement acting as a barrier; (5) “staffing levels” (environmental context and resources), e.g. shortages of doctors at night preventing implementation.The modified intervention included six new BCTs and consisted of two additional components (Sepsis Six training for the Hospital at Night Co-ordinator; a partnership agreement endorsing engagement of all clinical staff and permitting collegial challenge) and modifications to two existing components (staff education sessions; documents and materials).ConclusionsThis work demonstrates the feasibility of the TDF and BCT Taxonomy (v1) for developing an existing quality improvement intervention. The tools are compatible with the pragmatic P-D-S-A cycle approach generally used in quality improvement work.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0376-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Can a mock medication-taking learning activity enable pharmacy students to experience the range of barriers and facilitators to medication adherence? An analysis informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and COM-B model

This systematic literature review investigates factors impacting on clinicians' decisions to offer genetic tests in their practice, and maps them to a theoretical behaviour change framework. Better understanding of these factors will inform the design of effective interventions to integrate genomics tests into clinical care. We conducted a narrative synthesis of empirical research of medical specialists' perspectives on and experiences of offering genetic tests to their patients. This review was based upon the PRISMA statement and guidelines for reviewing qualitative research. Four electronic data sources were searched-MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed. Studies were independently assessed by two authors. Content analysis was applied to map the findings of included studies to a framework validated for behaviour and implementation research, the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). The TDF describes 14 factors known to influence behaviour and has been applied in diverse clinical settings to understand and/or modify health professional behaviour. Thirty-four studies published in 39 articles met inclusion and quality criteria. Most studies were published after 2011 (54%), Northern American (82%), quantitative in design (68%) and addressed familial cancer genetic tests (53%). Of the 14 TDF factors, 13 were identified. The three most common factors were: Environmental Context and Resources (n = 33), Beliefs about Consequences (n = 26), and Knowledge (n = 23). To support the adoption of genomic tests beyond specialist services, nuanced interventions targeting considerations beyond clinician education are needed. For instance, interventions addressing organisational constraints which may restrict clinicians' ability to offer genomic tests are required alongside those targeting factors intrinsic to the clinician.

Introduction: Despite being a fitness screened workforce, recent reports have highlighted a rising prevalence of obesity and chronic conditions in offshore workers (OW). Taking ownership of health, by engaging in self-care, is critical for those working in remote and hostile environments.Objectives: What influences OW engagement in self-care?Aims: By means of the TDF, this in-depth study sought to explore determinants of OW self-care behaviour from the perspectives of OW and remote healthcare practitioners (RHCP) to inform the development of self-care intervention(s).Methods: OW attending a training course, at a local facility, were recruited by the researcher. RHCP who held membership with an independent academic organisation and had experience of working in the offshore industry were recruited to the study, via email, by the organisation’s secretary. The TDF was used to develop an interview schedule. Telephone interviews were conducted, recorded electronically and transcribed by the researcher. TDF analysis was performed independently by two researchers.Results: Sixteen OW and 13 RHCP were interviewed. Self-care behaviours requiring behaviour change included diet and physical activity. TDF domains identified as behavioural determinants comprised: knowledge; beliefs about consequences; intentions; goals; memory, attention and decision processes; environmental context and resources; social influences; emotion, and behavioural regulation.Conclusion: The evidence from this study suggests that OW engagement with self-care is influenced by a number of factors. Whilst opportunities exist for the implementation of a self-care intervention(s) within the population, intervention design should be tailored in accordance with the behavioural determinants to meet the specific needs of OW.This abstract was presented at the Innovative Solutions in Remote Healthcare - 'Rethinking Remote' conference, 23-24 May 2016, Inverness, Scotland.

BackgroundRecent advances in the psychological understanding of health‐related behaviour have focused on producing a comprehensive framework to model such behaviour. The Capability‐Opportunity‐Motivation‐Behaviour (COM‐B) and its associated Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) allow researchers to classify psychological and behavioural constructs in a consistent and transferable manner across studies.AimTo identify oral and dental health‐related studies that have used the TDF and/or COM‐B as frameworks to guide research and examine the ways in which these concepts have been practically used in such research.MethodNarrative review of published literature. To be included, the paper had to (1) state that the TDF or COM‐B had been used and to have targeted at least one construct identified in either framework, (2) include primary empirical data, (3) focus on a behaviour directly related to oral or dental‐related health (eg brushing, applying fluoride varnish, flossing) and/or attitudes, intentions and beliefs related to the behaviour. Studies could include any research design, and participants of any age or gender and include patients, parents or dental health professionals.FindingsNine studies were identified that had drawn on the COM‐B and/or TDF as the framework for their research. Seven of the studies were based on the TDF only, with one employing both the COM‐B and Health Belief Model, and one using the TDF with COM‐B. The nine studies covered a broad range of oral health‐related behaviours including child tooth brushing, fluoride varnish application and non‐ or micro‐invasive management of proximal caries lesions. The populations in the studies included dentists, dental teams and parents of children. All studies adopted only a subset of the constructs within the TDF, often without justification.ConclusionsIt is encouraging that oral health researchers are adopting standardized psychological frameworks to develop their research and oral health interventions. Future work should build on the small number of studies identified in this review and consider using standardized tools to do so.

BackgroundComputerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) can improve care by bridging knowledge to practice gaps. However, the real-world uptake of such systems in health care settings has been suboptimal. We sought to: (1) use the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify determinants (barriers/enablers) of uptake of the Electronic Asthma Management System (eAMS) CDSS; (2) match identified TDF belief statements to elements in the Guideline Implementation with Decision Support (GUIDES) Checklist; and (3) explore the relationship between the TDF and GUIDES frameworks and the usefulness of this sequential approach for identifying opportunities to improve CDSS uptake.MethodsIn Phase 1, we conducted semistructured interviews with primary care physicians in Toronto, Canada regarding the uptake of the eAMS CDSS. Using content analysis, two coders independently analyzed interview transcripts guided by the TDF to generate themes representing barriers and enablers to CDSS uptake. In Phase 2, the same reviewers independently mapped each belief statement to a GUIDES domain and factor. We calculated the proportion of TDF belief statements that linked to each GUIDES domain and the proportion of TDF domains that linked to GUIDES factors (and vice-versa) and domains.ResultsWe interviewed 10 participants before data saturation. In Phase 1, we identified 53 belief statements covering 12 TDF domains; 18 (34.0%) were barriers, and 35 (66.0%) were enablers. In Phase 2, 41 statements (77.4%) linked to at least one GUIDES factor, while 12 (22.6%) did not link to any specific factor. The GUIDES Context Domain was linked to the largest number of belief statements (19/53; 35.8%). Each TDF domain linked to one or more GUIDES factor, with 6 TDF domains linking to more than 1 factor and 8 TDF domains linking to more than 1 GUIDES domain.ConclusionsThe TDF provides unique insights into barriers and enablers to CDSS uptake, which can then be mapped to GUIDES domains and factors to identify required changes to CDSS context, content, and system. This can be followed by conventional mapping of TDF domains to behaviour change techniques to optimize CDSS implementation. This novel step-wise approach combines two established frameworks to optimize CDSS interventions, and requires prospective validation.