Objectives: The Capabilities, Opportunities, Motivations, Behaviour (COM‐B) model is being used extensively to inform intervention design, but there is no standard measure with which to test the predictive validity of COM or to assess the impact of interventions on COM. We describe the development, reliability, validity, and acceptability of a generic 6‐item self‐evaluation COM questionnaire. Design and methods: The questionnaire was formulated by behaviour change experts. Acceptability was tested in two independent samples of health care professionals ( N = 13 and N = 85, respectively) and a sample of people with low socio‐economic status ( N = 214). Acceptability (missing data analyses and user feedback), reliability (test–retest reliability and Bland–Altman plots) and validity (floor and ceiling effects, Pearson's correlation coefficient [ r ], exploratory factor analysis [EFA], and confirmatory factor analysis [CFA] were tested using a national survey of 1,387 health care professionals. Results: The questionnaire demonstrated acceptability (missing data for individual items: 5.9–7.7% at baseline and 18.1–32.5% at follow‐up), reliability (ICCs .554–.833), and validity (floor effects 0.6–5.5% and ceiling effects 4.1–22.9%; pairwise correlations r s significantly <1.0). The regression models accounted for between 21 and 47% of the variance in behaviour. CFA (three‐factor model) demonstrated a good model fit, (χ ² [6] = 7.34, p = .29, RMSEA = .02, CFI = .99, TLI = .99, BIC = 13,510.420, AIC = 13,428.067). Conclusions: The novel six‐item questionnaire shows evidence of acceptability, validity, and reliability for self‐evaluating capabilities, opportunities, and motivations. Future research should aim to use this tool in different populations to obtain further support for its reliability and validity. Statement of contribution: What is already known on the subject? The Capability, Opportunity, Motivation (COM), Behaviour (‐B) model is being used extensively to inform intervention design. The lack of an accepted universal measure hinders progress in behaviour change. What does this study add? There is evidence of acceptability, validity, and reliability for self‐evaluating COM. Our measure may be sufficiently generic for any behaviour or population, although this requires further testing.

Objectives: Internationally, public health strategies encourage health care professionals to deliver opportunistic behaviour change interventions. The present study: (1) examines the barriers and enablers to delivering interventions during routine consultations, and (2) provides recommendations for the design of interventions to increase delivery of opportunistic behaviour change interventions. Design: Qualitative interview study. Methods: Twenty‐eight semi‐structured interviews were conducted with patient‐facing health care professionals. The Behaviour Change Wheel informed a framework analysis in which findings were mapped onto the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Intervention functions and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) targeting each TDF domain were identified. Results: Health care professionals understood the importance of opportunistic behaviour change interventions (beliefs about consequences), but were sceptical about their capabilities to facilitate behaviour change with patients (beliefs about capabilities). Some clinicians were unwilling to discuss behaviours perceived as unrelated to the patient's visit (social/professional role and identity). Discipline‐specific tasks were prioritized, and delivering interventions was perceived as psychologically burdensome. One‐to‐one contact was favoured over busy hospital settings (environmental context and resources). Seven intervention functions (training, restriction, environmental restructuring, enablement, education, persuasion, and modelling) and eight BCT groupings (antecedents, associations, comparison of outcomes, covert learning, feedback and monitoring, natural consequences, reward and threat, and self‐belief) were identified. Conclusions: Across disciplines, health care professionals see the value of opportunistic behaviour change interventions. Barriers related to workload, the clinical environment, competence, and perceptions of the health care professional role must be addressed, using appropriate intervention functions and BCTs, in order to support health care professionals to increase the delivery of interventions in routine practice. Statement of contribution: What is already known on this subject? Brief, opportunistic interventions can be a cost effective way of addressing population health problems. Public health policies compel health care professionals to deliver behaviour change interventions opportunistically. Health care professionals do not always deliver interventions opportunistically during routine medical consultations; however the barriers and enablers are currently unclear. What does this study add? This is the first study to examine cross‐disciplinary barriers and enablers to delivering opportunistic behaviour change interventions. Across diverse professional groups, working in different medical professions, participants saw the value of delivering opportunistic behaviour change interventions. Targeting key theoretical domains that are shared across professional groups may be useful for increasing the delivery of opportunistic behaviour change interventions.

Opportunities for healthcare professionals to deliver health behavior change interventions are often missed, but understanding the barriers and enablers to this activity is limited by a focus on defined specialisms/health conditions. This systematic review of systematic reviews collates all the evidence across professional groups to provide guidance to policy makers for implementing healthcare professional delivery of behavior change interventions. Eight electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews reporting patient-facing healthcare professionals’ (e.g., general practitioners, nurses) barriers and enablers to delivering behavior change interventions (diet, physical activity, alcohol reduction, smoking cessation, and weight management). A narrative synthesis was conducted. Thirty-six systematic reviews were included. Four themes emerged as both barriers and enablers: (1) perceptions of the knowledge or skills needed to support behavior change with patients, (2) perceptions of the healthcare professional role, (3) beliefs about resources and support needed, and (4) healthcare professionals’ own health behavior. There were four cross-disciplinary barriers: (1) perceived lack of time, (2) perceived lack of prioritization of health behavior change, (3) negative attitudes towards patients and perceptions of patient risk, and (4) perceptions of patient motivation. The three enablers were as follows: (1) training, (2) context, and (3) attitudes towards delivering interventions. To enhance healthcare professionals’ delivery of behavior change interventions, policy makers should (a) address perceptions about patient need for interventions, (b) support diverse professional groups to identify opportunities to deliver interventions, and (c) encourage professionals to focus on prevention and management of health conditions.

Technological support may be crucial in optimizing healthcare professional practice and improving patient outcomes. A focus on electronic health records has left other technological supports relatively neglected. Additionally, there has been no comparison between different types of technology-based interventions, and the importance of delivery setting on the implementation of technology-based interventions to change professional practice. Consequently, there is a need to synthesise and examine intervention characteristics using a methodology suited to identifying important features of effective interventions, and the barriers and facilitators to implementation. Three aims were addressed: to identify interventions with a technological component that are successful at changing professional practice, to determine if and how such interventions are theory-based, and to examine barriers and facilitators to successful implementation. A literature review informed by realist review methods was conducted involving a systematic search of studies reporting either: (1) behavior change interventions that included technology to support professional practice change; or (2) barriers and facilitators to implementation of technological interventions. Extracted data was quantitative and qualitative, and included setting, target professionals, and use of Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs). The primary outcome was a change in professional practice. A thematic analysis was conducted on studies reporting barriers and facilitators of implementation. Sixty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria; 48 (27 randomized controlled trials) reported behavior change interventions and 21 reported practicalities of implementation. The most successful technological intervention was decision support providing healthcare professionals with knowledge and/or person-specific information to assist with patient management. Successful technologies were more likely to operationalise BCTs, particularly “instruction on how to perform the behavior”. Facilitators of implementation included aligning studies with organisational initiatives, ensuring senior peer endorsement, and integration into clinical workload. Barriers included organisational challenges, and design, content and technical issues of technology-based interventions. Technological interventions must focus on providing decision support for clinical practice using recognized behavior change techniques. Interventions must consider organizational context, clinical workload, and have clearly defined benefits for improving practice and patient outcomes.

“Making Every Contact Count” (MECC), a public health policy in the UK, compels healthcare professionals to deliver opportunistic health behaviour change interventions to patients during routine medical consultations. Professionals’ awareness of, and engagement with, the policy is unclear. This study examined (1) awareness of the MECC policy, and (2) the prevalence of MECC-related practice in relation to (a) perceived patient benefit, (b) how often healthcare professionals deliver interventions during routine consultations, and (c) the time spent on this activity. Cross-sectional national survey was administered in 2017 of 1387 healthcare professionals working in the UK’s National Health Service (NHS). Descriptive statistics were used to assess awareness and practice consistent with the MECC policy. Chi-square was used to gauge the potential representativeness of our sample compared to NHS employment data. 31.4% of healthcare professionals reported having heard of the policy; nevertheless, healthcare professionals perceived a need to provide patients with opportunistic behaviour change interventions in 55.9% (32,946/58,906) of consultations. However, healthcare professionals did not deliver interventions on 50.0% of occasions in which they perceived a need. Where behaviour change interventions were delivered to patients, this constituted 35.3% of the appointment time. Policy makers must address the gap between the proportion of patients that healthcare professionals perceive would benefit from opportunistic behaviour change interventions and those receiving them (an estimated 50.0%; 16,473 additional patients could have benefited). Future research should consider how healthcare professionals identify patients who might benefit from opportunistic behaviour change interventions and developing training for efficient delivery of interventions.

Public health teams need to understand how the public responds to vaccination messages in a pandemic or epidemic to inform successful campaigns encouraging the uptake of new vaccines as they become available. A rapid systematic review was performed by searching PsycINFO, MEDLINE, healthevidence.org, OSF Preprints and PsyArXiv Preprints in May 2020 for studies including at least one health message promoting vaccine uptake of airborne-, droplet- and fomite-spread viruses. Included studies were assessed for quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) or the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), and for patient and public involvement (PPI) in the research. Thirty-five articles were included. Most reported messages for seasonal influenza (n = 11; 31%) or H1N1 (n = 11; 31%). Evidence from moderate to high quality studies for improving vaccine uptake included providing information about virus risks and vaccination safety, as well as addressing vaccine misunderstandings, offering vaccination reminders, including vaccination clinic details, and delivering mixed media campaigns across hospitals or communities. Behavioural influences (beliefs and intentions) were improved when: shorter, risk-reducing or relative risk framing messages were used; the benefits of vaccination to society were emphasised; and beliefs about capability and concerns among target populations (e.g., vaccine safety) were addressed. Clear, credible, messages in a language target groups can understand were associated with higher acceptability. Two studies (6%) described PPI in the research process. Future campaigns should consider the beliefs and information needs of target populations in their design, including ensuring that vaccine eligibility and availability is clear, and messages are accessible. More high quality research is needed to demonstrate the effects of messaging interventions on actual vaccine uptake.