The UK Medical Research Council’s widely used guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions has been replaced by a new framework, commissioned jointly by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research, which takes account of recent developments in theory and methods and the need to maximise the efficiency, use, and impact of research.

Background: Current reporting of intervention content in published research articles and protocols is generally poor, with great diversity of terminology, resulting in low replicability. This study aimed to extend the scope and improve the reliability of a 26-item taxonomy of behaviour change techniques developed by Abraham and Michie [Abraham, C. and Michie, S. (2008). A taxonomy of behaviour change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychology, 27(3), 379–387.] in order to optimise the reporting and scientific study of behaviour change interventions. Methods: Three UK study centres collaborated in applying this existing taxonomy to two systematic reviews of interventions to increase physical activity and healthy eating. The taxonomy was refined in iterative steps of (1) coding intervention descriptions, and assessing inter-rater reliability, (2) identifying gaps and problems across study centres and (3) refining the labels and definitions based on consensus discussions. Results: Labels and definitions were improved for all techniques, conceptual overlap between categories was resolved, some categories were split and 14 techniques were added, resulting in a 40-item taxonomy. Inter-rater reliability, assessed on 50 published intervention descriptions, was good (kappa = 0.79). Conclusions: This taxonomy can be used to improve the specification of interventions in published reports, thus improving replication, implementation and evidence syntheses. This will strengthen the scientific study of behaviour change and intervention development.

Regular physical activity helps to improve physical and mental functions as well as reverse some effects of chronic disease to keep older people mobile and independent. Despite the highly publicised benefits of physical activity, the overwhelming majority of older people in the United Kingdom do not meet the minimum physical activity levels needed to maintain health. The sedentary lifestyles that predominate in older age results in premature onset of ill health, disease and frailty. Local authorities have a responsibility to promote physical activity amongst older people, but knowing how to stimulate regular activity at the population-level is challenging. The physiological rationale for physical activity, risks of adverse events, societal and psychological factors are discussed with a view to inform public health initiatives for the relatively healthy older person as well as those with physical frailty. The evidence shows that regular physical activity is safe for healthy and for frail older people and the risks of developing major cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, obesity, falls, cognitive impairments, osteoporosis and muscular weakness are decreased by regularly completing activities ranging from low intensity walking through to more vigorous sports and resistance exercises. Yet, participation in physical activities remains low amongst older adults, particularly those living in less affluent areas. Older people may be encouraged to increase their activities if influenced by clinicians, family or friends, keeping costs low and enjoyment high, facilitating group-based activities and raising self-efficacy for exercise.

There is convincing evidence that targeting self-efficacy is an effective means of increasing physical activity. However, evidence concerning which are the most effective techniques for changing self-efficacy and thereby physical activity is lacking. The present review aims to estimate the association between specific intervention techniques used in physical activity interventions and change obtained in both self-efficacy and physical activity behaviour. A systematic search yielded 27 physical activity intervention studies for 'healthy' adults that reported self-efficacy and physical activity data. A small, yet significant (P < 0.01) effect of the interventions was found on change in self-efficacy and physical activity (d = 0.16 and 0.21, respectively). When a technique was associated with a change in effect sizes for self-efficacy, it also tended to be associated with a change (r(s) = 0.690, P < 0.001) in effect size for physical activity. Moderator analyses found that 'action planning', 'provide instruction' and 'reinforcing effort towards behaviour' were associated with significantly higher levels of both self-efficacy and physical activity. 'Relapse prevention' and 'setting graded tasks' were associated with significantly lower self-efficacy and physical activity levels. This meta-analysis provides evidence for which psychological techniques are most effective for changing self-efficacy and physical activity.

Background: The Medical Research Council published the second edition of its framework in 2006 on developing and evaluating complex interventions. Since then, there have been considerable developments in the field of complex intervention research. The objective of this project was to update the framework in the light of these developments. The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design, and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods.Methods: There were four stages to the update: (1) gap analysis to identify developments in the methods and practice since the previous framework was published; (2) an expert workshop of 36 participants to discuss the topics identified in the gap analysis; (3) an open consultation process to seek comments on a first draft of the new framework; and (4) findings from the previous stages were used to redraft the framework, and final expert review was obtained. The process was overseen by a Scientific Advisory Group representing the range of relevant National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council research investments.Results: Key changes to the previous framework include (1) an updated definition of complex interventions, highlighting the dynamic relationship between the intervention and its context; (2) an emphasis on the use of diverse research perspectives: efficacy, effectiveness, theory-based and systems perspectives; (3) a focus on the usefulness of evidence as the basis for determining research perspective and questions; (4) an increased focus on interventions developed outside research teams, for example changes in policy or health services delivery; and (5) the identification of six ‘core elements’ that should guide all phases of complex intervention research: consider context; develop, refine and test programme theory; engage stakeholders; identify key uncertainties; refine the intervention; and economic considerations. We divide the research process into four phases: development, feasibility, evaluation and implementation. For each phase we provide a concise summary of recent developments, key points to address and signposts to further reading. We also present case studies to illustrate the points being made throughout.Limitations: The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods. In many of the areas of innovation that we highlight, such as the use of systems approaches, there are still only a few practical examples. We refer to more specific and detailed guidance where available and note where promising approaches require further development.Conclusions: This new framework incorporates developments in complex intervention research published since the previous edition was written in 2006. As well as taking account of established practice and recent refinements, we draw attention to new approaches and place greater emphasis on economic considerations in complex intervention research. We have introduced a new emphasis on the importance of context and the value of understanding interventions as ‘events in systems’ that produce effects through interactions with features of the contexts in which they are implemented. The framework adopts a pluralist approach, encouraging researchers and research funders to adopt diverse research perspectives and to select research questions and methods pragmatically, with the aim of providing evidence that is useful to decision-makers.Future work: We call for further work to develop relevant methods and provide examples in practice. The use of this framework should be monitored and the move should be made to a more fluid resource in the future, for example a web-based format that can be frequently updated to incorporate new material and links to emerging resources.Funding: This project was jointly funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (Department of Health and Social Care 73514).