0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A data extraction template for the behaviour change intervention ontology

      other

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The Behaviour Change Intervention Ontology (BCIO) aims to improve the clarity, completeness and consistency of reporting within intervention descriptions and evidence synthesis. However, a recommended method for transparently annotating intervention evaluation reports using the BCIO does not currently exist. This study aimed to develop a data extraction template for annotating using the BCIO.

          Methods

          The BCIO data extraction template was developed in four stages: i) scoping review of papers citing component ontologies within the BCIO, ii) development of a draft template, iii) piloting and revising the template, and iv) dissemination and maintenance of the template.

          Results

          A prototype data extraction template using Microsoft Excel was developed based on BCIO annotations from 14 papers. The ‘BCIO data extraction template v1’ was produced following piloting and revision, incorporating a facility for user feedback.

          Discussion

          This data extraction template provides a single, accessible resource to extract all necessary characteristics of behaviour change intervention scenarios. It can be used to annotate the presence of BCIO entities for evidence synthesis, including systematic reviews. In the future, we will update this template based on feedback from the community, additions of newly published ontologies within the BCIO, and revisions to existing ontologies.

          Plain language summary

          Behaviour change interventions are often reported in an inconsistent and incomplete manner in study reports. This makes it difficult to build knowledge and predict outcomes. There is a need for a shared language to describe behaviour change interventions. This need was met using ‘ontologies’, which are classification systems that represent knowledge in a standardised way. The Behaviour Change Intervention Ontology (BCIO) has been developed to describe the different aspects of interventions in a way that is precise enough for computers as well as humans to ‘read’ study findings. The BCIO can be used to extract information from study reports for evidence synthesis, such as systematic literature reviews. To meet the need for a resource for annotating (coding) study reports according to the BCIO, we developed a data extraction template. The template was developed in four stages: i) reviewing existing papers using the BCIO, ii) development of a draft template, iii) piloting and revising the template, and iv) dissemination and maintenance of the template. The resulting resource is an accessible, easy-to-use template to assist with specifying the content of published papers reporting interventions and their evaluation. The template will be updated based on user feedback and future revisions to the BCIO.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide

          Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions.

            CONSORT guidelines call for precise reporting of behavior change interventions: we need rigorous methods of characterizing active content of interventions with precision and specificity. The objective of this study is to develop an extensive, consensually agreed hierarchically structured taxonomy of techniques [behavior change techniques (BCTs)] used in behavior change interventions. In a Delphi-type exercise, 14 experts rated labels and definitions of 124 BCTs from six published classification systems. Another 18 experts grouped BCTs according to similarity of active ingredients in an open-sort task. Inter-rater agreement amongst six researchers coding 85 intervention descriptions by BCTs was assessed. This resulted in 93 BCTs clustered into 16 groups. Of the 26 BCTs occurring at least five times, 23 had adjusted kappas of 0.60 or above. "BCT taxonomy v1," an extensive taxonomy of 93 consensually agreed, distinct BCTs, offers a step change as a method for specifying interventions, but we anticipate further development and evaluation based on international, interdisciplinary consensus.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis

              Correctable weaknesses in the design, conduct, and analysis of biomedical and public health research studies can produce misleading results and waste valuable resources. Small effects can be difficult to distinguish from bias introduced by study design and analyses. An absence of detailed written protocols and poor documentation of research is common. Information obtained might not be useful or important, and statistical precision or power is often too low or used in a misleading way. Insufficient consideration might be given to both previous and continuing studies. Arbitrary choice of analyses and an overemphasis on random extremes might affect the reported findings. Several problems relate to the research workforce, including failure to involve experienced statisticians and methodologists, failure to train clinical researchers and laboratory scientists in research methods and design, and the involvement of stakeholders with conflicts of interest. Inadequate emphasis is placed on recording of research decisions and on reproducibility of research. Finally, reward systems incentivise quantity more than quality, and novelty more than reliability. We propose potential solutions for these problems, including improvements in protocols and documentation, consideration of evidence from studies in progress, standardisation of research efforts, optimisation and training of an experienced and non-conflicted scientific workforce, and reconsideration of scientific reward systems. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ResourcesRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Funding AcquisitionRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Journal
                Wellcome Open Res
                Wellcome Open Res
                Wellcome Open Research
                F1000 Research Limited (London, UK )
                2398-502X
                26 March 2024
                2024
                : 9
                : 168
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Health Sciences, Brunel University London, London, England, UK
                [2 ]Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, England, UK
                [3 ]School of Health & Exercise Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
                [1 ]Danish Centre of Motivation and Behaviour Science (DRIVEN), University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
                [1 ]Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
                Author notes

                No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9957-4025
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4255-9609
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0063-6378
                Article
                10.12688/wellcomeopenres.20872.1
                11170071
                38873399
                3f14cb76-2963-401f-bc8d-3075c58452c5
                Copyright: © 2024 Norris E et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 13 February 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: Wellcome Trust
                Award ID: 201524
                This work was supported by Wellcome through a collaborative award to the Human Behaviour-Change Project [201524].
                The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Note
                Articles

                evidence synthesis,data extraction,annotation,ontology,behaviour change intervention,intervention reporting

                Comments

                Comment on this article