Background: The ultimate impact of a health innovation depends not only on its effectiveness but also on its reach in the population and the extent to which it is implemented with high levels of completeness and fidelity. Implementation science has emerged as the potential solution to the failure to translate evidence from research into effective practice and policy evident in many fields. Implementation scientists have developed many frameworks, theories and models, which describe implementation determinants, processes, or outcomes; yet, there is little guidance about how these can inform the development or selection of implementation strategies (methods or techniques used to improve adoption, implementation, sustainment, and scale-up of interventions) (1, 2). To move the implementation science field forward and to provide a practical tool to apply the knowledge in this field, we describe a systematic process for planning or selecting implementation strategies: Implementation Mapping. Methods: Implementation Mapping is based on Intervention Mapping (a six-step protocol that guides the design of multi-level health promotion interventions and implementation strategies) and expands on Intervention Mapping step 5. It includes insights from both the implementation science field and Intervention Mapping. Implementation Mapping involves five tasks: (1) conduct an implementation needs assessment and identify program adopters and implementers; (2) state adoption and implementation outcomes and performance objectives, identify determinants, and create matrices of change objectives; (3) choose theoretical methods (mechanisms of change) and select or design implementation strategies; (4) produce implementation protocols and materials; and (5) evaluate implementation outcomes. The tasks are iterative with the planner circling back to previous steps throughout this process to ensure all adopters and implementers, outcomes, determinants, and objectives are addressed. Discussion: Implementation Mapping provides a systematic process for developing strategies to improve the adoption, implementation, and maintenance of evidence-based interventions in real-world settings.

Use of fear appeals assumes that when people are emotionally confronted with the negative effects of their behaviour they will change that behaviour. That reasoning is simple and intuitive, but only true under specific, rare circumstances. Risk perception theories predict that if people will experience a threat, they want to counter that threat. However, how they do so is determined by their coping efficacy level: if efficacy is high, they may change their behaviour in the suggested direction; if efficacy is low, they react defensively. Research on fear appeals should be methodologically sound, comparing a threatening to a non-threatening intervention under high and low efficacy levels, random assignment and measuring behaviour as outcome. We critically review extant empirical evidence and conclude that it does not support positive effects of fear appeals. Nonetheless, their use persists and is even promoted by health psychology researchers, causing scientific insights to be ignored or misinterpreted.

The current article details a position statement and recommendations for future research and practice on planning and implementation intentions in health contexts endorsed by the Synergy Expert Group. The group comprised world-leading researchers in health and social psychology and behavioural medicine who convened to discuss priority issues in planning interventions in health contexts and develop a set of recommendations for future research and practice. The expert group adopted a nominal groups approach and voting system to elicit and structure priority issues in planning interventions and implementation intentions research. Forty-two priority issues identified in initial discussions were further condensed to 18 key issues, including definitions of planning and implementation intentions and 17 priority research areas. Each issue was subjected to voting for consensus among group members and formed the basis of the position statement and recommendations. Specifically, the expert group endorsed statements and recommendations in the following areas: generic definition of planning and specific definition of implementation intentions, recommendations for better testing of mechanisms, guidance on testing the effects of moderators of planning interventions, recommendations on the social aspects of planning interventions, identification of the preconditions that moderate effectiveness of planning interventions and recommendations for research on how people use plans.

Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) involves repeated, real-time sampling of health behaviours in context. We present the state-of-knowledge in EMA research focused on five key health behaviours (physical activity and sedentary behaviour, dietary behaviour, alcohol consumption, tobacco smoking, sexual health), summarising theoretical (e.g., psychological and contextual predictors) and methodological aspects (e.g., study characteristics, EMA adherence). We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science until February 2021. We included studies focused on any of the aforementioned health behaviours in adult, non-clinical populations that assessed ≥1 psychological/contextual predictor and reported a predictor-behaviour association. A narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analyses of EMA adherence were conducted. We included 633 studies. The median study duration was 14 days. The most frequently assessed predictors were ‘negative feeling states’ (21%) and ‘motivation and goals’ (16.5%). The pooled percentage of EMA adherence was high at 81.4% (95% CI = 80.0%, 82.8%, k = 348) and did not differ by target behaviour but was somewhat higher in student (vs. general population) samples, when EMAs were delivered via mobile phones/smartphones (vs. handheld devices), and when event contingent (vs. fixed) sampling was used. This review showcases how the EMA method has been applied to improve understanding and prediction of health behaviours in context.

Background: Hypertension has become an important public health concern in the developing world owing to rising prevalence and its adverse impact on ailing health systems. Despite being a modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease, hypertension has not received the needed attention in Ghana as a result of various competing interests for scarce health resources. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides a comprehensive and updated summary of the literature on the prevalence of hypertension in Ghana. Methods: Major databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar and local thesis repositories were accessed to identify population-based studies on hypertension among Ghanaians. Data extracted from retrieved reports were screened independently by two reviewers. The quality of eligible studies was evaluated and reported. A reliable pooled estimate of hypertension prevalence was calculated utilizing a random-effects model and reported according to the GRADE framework. Additionally, a meta-regression analysis was performed to analyze the contribution of study-level variables to variance in hypertension prevalence. Results: In general, a total of 45,470 subjects (n = 22,866 males and 22,604 females) were enrolled from urban (n = 12), rural (n = 8), and mixed populations (n = 7). Blood pressure (BP) was measured across studies according to a validated and clinically approved protocol by trained field workers or healthcare workers including nurses and physicians. A combined total of 30,033 participants across twenty studies reporting on the population prevalence of hypertension were pooled with 10,625 (35.4%) identified to satisfy study criteria for elevated BP. The pooled prevalence across 24 studies was 30.3% (95% CI 26.1–34.8%) after fitting a random effects model. Prevalence of hypertension was 30.1% (95% CI 25.6–36.0%) among females and 34.0% (95% CI 28.5–40.0%) among males. Significant differences in pooled estimates across regions emerged from subgroup comparisons of regional estimates with an increasing trend in the north-to-south direction and with increasing age. Compared to rural settings, the burden of hypertension in urban populations was significantly higher. Age structure and population type accounted for 65.0% of the observed heterogeneity in hypertension estimates. Conclusions: The prevalence of hypertension in Ghana is still high. The gap in hypertension prevalence between rural and urban populations is closing especially in elderly populations. These findings must claim the attention of public health authorities in Ghana to explore opportunities to reduce rural hypertension. Systematic review registration: The protocol for this review has been published previously with PROSPERO (CRD42020215829).