Providing health professionals with quantitative summaries of their clinical performance when treating specific groups of patients (“feedback”) is a widely used quality improvement strategy, yet systematic reviews show it has varying success. Theory could help explain what factors influence feedback success, and guide approaches to enhance effectiveness. However, existing theories lack comprehensiveness and specificity to health care. To address this problem, we conducted the first systematic review and synthesis of qualitative evaluations of feedback interventions, using findings to develop a comprehensive new health care-specific feedback theory. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from inception until 2016 inclusive. Data were synthesised by coding individual papers, building on pre-existing theories to formulate hypotheses, iteratively testing and improving hypotheses, assessing confidence in hypotheses using the GRADE-CERQual method, and summarising high-confidence hypotheses into a set of propositions. We synthesised 65 papers evaluating 73 feedback interventions from countries spanning five continents. From our synthesis we developed Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT), which builds on 30 pre-existing theories and has 42 high-confidence hypotheses. CP-FIT states that effective feedback works in a cycle of sequential processes; it becomes less effective if any individual process fails, thus halting progress round the cycle. Feedback’s success is influenced by several factors operating via a set of common explanatory mechanisms: the feedback method used, health professional receiving feedback, and context in which feedback takes place. CP-FIT summarises these effects in three propositions: (1) health care professionals and organisations have a finite capacity to engage with feedback, (2) these parties have strong beliefs regarding how patient care should be provided that influence their interactions with feedback, and (3) feedback that directly supports clinical behaviours is most effective. This is the first qualitative meta-synthesis of feedback interventions, and the first comprehensive theory of feedback designed specifically for health care. Our findings contribute new knowledge about how feedback works and factors that influence its effectiveness. Internationally, practitioners, researchers, and policy-makers can use CP-FIT to design, implement, and evaluate feedback. Doing so could improve care for large numbers of patients, reduce opportunity costs, and improve returns on financial investments. PROSPERO, CRD42015017541

Addressing the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance is, in part, reliant on the complex challenge of changing human behaviour—in terms of reducing inappropriate antibiotic use and preventing infection. Whilst there is no ‘one size fits all’ recommended behavioural solution for improving antimicrobial stewardship, the behavioural and social sciences offer a range of theories, frameworks, methods and evidence-based principles that can help inform the design of behaviour change interventions that are context-specific and thus more likely to be effective. However, the state-of-the-art in antimicrobial stewardship research and practice suggests that behavioural and social influences are often not given due consideration in the design and evaluation of interventions to improve antimicrobial prescribing. In this paper, we discuss four potential areas where the behavioural and social sciences can help drive more effective and sustained behaviour change in antimicrobial stewardship: (i) defining the problem in behavioural terms and understanding current behaviour in context; (ii) adopting a theory-driven, systematic approach to intervention design; (iii) investigating implementation and sustainability of interventions in practice; and (iv) maximizing learning through evidence synthesis and detailed intervention reporting.

Biodegradable and compostable plastic packaging (BCPP) has the potential to reduce a global plastic waste problem. We aimed to identify influences on buying BCPP as a basis for designing strategies that enable BCPP’s environmental benefits. Using a UK-focused citizen science dataset, we thematically analysed 610 survey responses to a question exploring reasons for BCPP purchase. Themes are categorised as barriers and enablers and according to the components of the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behaviour (COM-B) model of behaviour. Key barriers concerned: psychological capability (not understanding terminology used to label packaging, not taking notice of packaging, and preferring other types of packaging and product qualities); reflective motivation (negative beliefs about BCPP’s environmental impacts and skepticism over decomposition claims), and physical opportunity (no access to appropriate waste management). Key enablers concern: reflective motivation (positive beliefs about BCPP’s environmental impact and resolve to behave pro-environmentally) and physical opportunity (access to appropriate waste management). Reducing ambiguity concerning the labels of biodegradable and compostable may reduce skepticism over environmental claims of packaging. Interventions should improve information about the source of the packaging material, how the packaging waste is processed, and how to dispose of the packaging. This will not be sufficient unless facilities for local BCPP waste collection and processing are increased.

Intervention fidelity is the degree to which interventions have been implemented as intended by their developers. Assessing fidelity is crucial for accurate interpretation of intervention effectiveness, but fidelity is often poorly addressed within trials of complex healthcare interventions. The reasons for this are unclear, and information on the use of methods to enhance and assess fidelity in trials of complex interventions remains insufficient. This study aimed to explore the knowledge, practice and attitudes towards intervention fidelity amongst researchers, triallists and healthcare professionals involved with the design and conduct of trials of complex healthcare interventions. An online survey consisting of closed and open-ended questions exploring four sections (Demographics, Fidelity knowledge, Practice and Attitudes) was conducted. This was an opportunistic sample of individuals with experience of direct involvement in trials of complex healthcare interventions (e.g. design/development, conduct, evaluation). Data from 264 participants representing 15 countries were analysed. The majority (65.9%, n = 174) of participants identified themselves as ‘Researchers’. The majority of participants were familiar with the term “intervention fidelity” (69.7%, n = 184) and indicated that fidelity is important (89.7%, n = 236). Mean self-reported understanding of fidelity was moderate. Although 68% (n = 182) had previously used strategies to assess (e.g. audio/video-recording sessions) and enhance (e.g. training manual) fidelity in trials of complex interventions, only a limited proportion of participants indicated always reporting these strategies in subsequent publications (30.9%, n = 56). Poor knowledge or understanding was the most commonly cited barrier to addressing intervention fidelity in trials (77.4%, n = 202). Over half of respondents (52.1%, n = 137) had never completed specific fidelity training or research, and the vast majority (89.7%, n = 236) would welcome specific training in this area. Despite good awareness of intervention fidelity and its importance, poor knowledge and understanding appears to be a key factor limiting how intervention fidelity is addressed in trials of complex interventions. Participants identified a need for further training and education in this area. Additionally, clarification of the terminology, definition and components of intervention fidelity would facilitate better understanding of the concept. A discrepancy between participants’ use of fidelity strategies and subsequent reporting raises concerns around inadequate fidelity reporting in the trials literature.

Behavioral support interventions are used to help pregnant smokers stop; however, of those tested, few are proven effective. Systematic research developing effective pregnancy-specific behavior change techniques (BCTs) is ongoing. This paper reports contributory work identifying potentially-effective BCTs relative to known important barriers and facilitators (B&Fs) to smoking cessation in pregnancy; to detect priority areas for BCTs development. A Nominal Group Technique with cessation experts (n = 12) elicited an expert consensus on B&Fs most influencing women’s smoking cessation and those most modifiable through behavioral support. Effective cessation interventions in randomized trials from a recent Cochrane review were coded into component BCTs using existing taxonomies. B&Fs were categorized using Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) domains. Matrices, mapping BCT taxonomies against TDF domains, were consulted to investigate the extent to which BCTs in existing interventions target key B&Fs. Experts ranked ‘smoking a social norm’ and ‘quitting not a priority’ as most important barriers and ‘desire to protect baby’ an important facilitator to quitting. From 14 trials, 23 potentially-effective BCTs were identified (e.g., ‘information about consequences). Most B&Fs fell into ‘Social Influences’, ‘Knowledge’, ‘Emotions’ and ‘Intentions’ TDF domains; few potentially-effective BCTs mapped onto every TDF domain. B&Fs identified by experts as important to cessation, are not sufficiently targeted by BCT’s currently within interventions for smoking cessation in pregnancy.

Aims: Sustained engagement in type 1 diabetes self‐management behaviours is a critical element in achieving improvements in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and minimising risk of complications. Evaluations of self‐management programmes, such as Dose Adjustment for Normal Eating (DAFNE), typically find that initial improvements are rarely sustained beyond 12 months. This study identified behaviours involved in sustained type 1 diabetes self‐management, their influences and relationships to each other.Methods: A mixed‐methods study was conducted following the first two steps of the Behaviour Change Wheel framework. First, an expert stakeholder consultation identified behaviours involved in self‐management of type 1 diabetes. Second, three evidence sources (systematic review, healthcare provider‐generated ‘red flags’ and participant‐generated ‘frequently asked questions’) were analysed to identify and synthesise modifiable barriers and enablers to sustained self‐management. These were characterised according to the Capability‐Opportunity‐Motivation‐Behaviour (COM‐B) model.Results: 150 distinct behaviours were identified and organised into three self‐regulatory behavioural cycles, reflecting different temporal and situational aspects of diabetes self‐management: Routine (e.g. checking blood glucose), Reactive (e.g. treating hypoglycaemia) and Reflective (e.g. reviewing blood glucose data to identify patterns). Thirty‐four barriers and five enablers were identified: 10 relating to Capability, 20 to Opportunity and nine to Motivation.Conclusions: Multiple behaviours within three self‐management cycles are involved in sustained type 1 diabetes self‐management. There are a wide range of barriers and enablers that should be addressed to support self‐management behaviours and improve clinical outcomes. The present study provides an evidence base for refining and developing type 1 diabetes self‐management programmes.