Factors influencing application of behavioural science evidence by public health decision-makers and practitioners, and implications for practice

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    2 Citations (Scopus)
    19 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK recommends behavioural science evidence underpins public health improvement services. In practice, level of implementation varies. This study is the first to explore factors affecting use of behaviour-specific evidence by public health decision-makers and practitioners for design and delivery of health improvement services. Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted, along with a review of the commissioning cycle with public health decision-makers and practitioners across a range of health improvement fields (e.g. weight management). Interviews were informed and analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Limited comprehension of behaviour change, challenges identifying specific behaviour change strategies and translating research into practice were prevalent. Local authority processes encouraged uptake of evidence to justify solutions as opposed to evidence-driven decision-making. Some decision-makers perceived research evidence may stifle innovation and overwhelm practitioners. Potential facilitators of research use included: ensuring uptake and implementation of evidence is compulsory within commissioning and its potential to show value for money. A strong belief in local evidence and achieving outcomes were identified as barriers to research evidence uptake. Social and environmental challenges included cultural, political, and workload pressures and journal article accessibility. Embedding behavioural science systematically into public health practice requires changes throughout the public health system; from priorities set by national public health leaders to the way in which relevant evidence is disseminated. Framing factors affecting use of behavioural science evidence using the TDF is helpful for identifying the range of interventions and support needed to affect change.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)106-115
    Number of pages10
    JournalPreventive Medicine Reports
    Volume12
    Early online date1 Sep 2018
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2018

    Fingerprint

    Behavioral Sciences
    Public Health
    Research
    Interviews
    Stifle
    Public Health Practice
    United States Public Health Service
    National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
    Workload
    Health Services
    Decision Making
    Delivery of Health Care
    Pressure
    Weights and Measures
    Health

    Bibliographical note

    This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
    (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/)

    Keywords

    • Behaviour change
    • Behavioural science
    • Evidence
    • Public health
    • Research translation
    • Theoretical Domains Framework

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Health Informatics
    • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

    Cite this

    @article{a2b34e5f6e714278903b77cbba242f61,
    title = "Factors influencing application of behavioural science evidence by public health decision-makers and practitioners, and implications for practice",
    abstract = "The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK recommends behavioural science evidence underpins public health improvement services. In practice, level of implementation varies. This study is the first to explore factors affecting use of behaviour-specific evidence by public health decision-makers and practitioners for design and delivery of health improvement services. Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted, along with a review of the commissioning cycle with public health decision-makers and practitioners across a range of health improvement fields (e.g. weight management). Interviews were informed and analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Limited comprehension of behaviour change, challenges identifying specific behaviour change strategies and translating research into practice were prevalent. Local authority processes encouraged uptake of evidence to justify solutions as opposed to evidence-driven decision-making. Some decision-makers perceived research evidence may stifle innovation and overwhelm practitioners. Potential facilitators of research use included: ensuring uptake and implementation of evidence is compulsory within commissioning and its potential to show value for money. A strong belief in local evidence and achieving outcomes were identified as barriers to research evidence uptake. Social and environmental challenges included cultural, political, and workload pressures and journal article accessibility. Embedding behavioural science systematically into public health practice requires changes throughout the public health system; from priorities set by national public health leaders to the way in which relevant evidence is disseminated. Framing factors affecting use of behavioural science evidence using the TDF is helpful for identifying the range of interventions and support needed to affect change.",
    keywords = "Behaviour change, Behavioural science, Evidence, Public health, Research translation, Theoretical Domains Framework",
    author = "Kristina Curtis and Emmie Fulton and Katherine Brown",
    note = "This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/)",
    year = "2018",
    month = "12",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.08.012",
    language = "English",
    volume = "12",
    pages = "106--115",
    journal = "Preventive Medicine Reports",
    issn = "2211-3355",
    publisher = "Elsevier",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Factors influencing application of behavioural science evidence by public health decision-makers and practitioners, and implications for practice

    AU - Curtis, Kristina

    AU - Fulton, Emmie

    AU - Brown, Katherine

    N1 - This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/)

    PY - 2018/12/1

    Y1 - 2018/12/1

    N2 - The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK recommends behavioural science evidence underpins public health improvement services. In practice, level of implementation varies. This study is the first to explore factors affecting use of behaviour-specific evidence by public health decision-makers and practitioners for design and delivery of health improvement services. Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted, along with a review of the commissioning cycle with public health decision-makers and practitioners across a range of health improvement fields (e.g. weight management). Interviews were informed and analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Limited comprehension of behaviour change, challenges identifying specific behaviour change strategies and translating research into practice were prevalent. Local authority processes encouraged uptake of evidence to justify solutions as opposed to evidence-driven decision-making. Some decision-makers perceived research evidence may stifle innovation and overwhelm practitioners. Potential facilitators of research use included: ensuring uptake and implementation of evidence is compulsory within commissioning and its potential to show value for money. A strong belief in local evidence and achieving outcomes were identified as barriers to research evidence uptake. Social and environmental challenges included cultural, political, and workload pressures and journal article accessibility. Embedding behavioural science systematically into public health practice requires changes throughout the public health system; from priorities set by national public health leaders to the way in which relevant evidence is disseminated. Framing factors affecting use of behavioural science evidence using the TDF is helpful for identifying the range of interventions and support needed to affect change.

    AB - The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK recommends behavioural science evidence underpins public health improvement services. In practice, level of implementation varies. This study is the first to explore factors affecting use of behaviour-specific evidence by public health decision-makers and practitioners for design and delivery of health improvement services. Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted, along with a review of the commissioning cycle with public health decision-makers and practitioners across a range of health improvement fields (e.g. weight management). Interviews were informed and analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Limited comprehension of behaviour change, challenges identifying specific behaviour change strategies and translating research into practice were prevalent. Local authority processes encouraged uptake of evidence to justify solutions as opposed to evidence-driven decision-making. Some decision-makers perceived research evidence may stifle innovation and overwhelm practitioners. Potential facilitators of research use included: ensuring uptake and implementation of evidence is compulsory within commissioning and its potential to show value for money. A strong belief in local evidence and achieving outcomes were identified as barriers to research evidence uptake. Social and environmental challenges included cultural, political, and workload pressures and journal article accessibility. Embedding behavioural science systematically into public health practice requires changes throughout the public health system; from priorities set by national public health leaders to the way in which relevant evidence is disseminated. Framing factors affecting use of behavioural science evidence using the TDF is helpful for identifying the range of interventions and support needed to affect change.

    KW - Behaviour change

    KW - Behavioural science

    KW - Evidence

    KW - Public health

    KW - Research translation

    KW - Theoretical Domains Framework

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053135188&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.08.012

    DO - 10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.08.012

    M3 - Article

    VL - 12

    SP - 106

    EP - 115

    JO - Preventive Medicine Reports

    JF - Preventive Medicine Reports

    SN - 2211-3355

    ER -