Examining the theory‐effectiveness hypothesis: A systematic review of systematic reviews
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: Health interventions based on theory may be more effective than those that are not. This review of reviews synthesizes all published randomized controlled trial (RCT) meta-analytic evidence from the last decade to examine whether theory-based interventions were found to be associated with more effective adult health behaviour change interventions. METHODS: Systematic reviews including meta-analyses were identified by searching Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and CDSR. A narrative synthesis was used to summarize and analyse the evidence. Only reviews including RCTs of health behaviour change interventions with adults aged 18+ published from 2007 to 2017 were included. RESULTS: Of 8,659 articles, nine systematic reviews met inclusion criteria. The majority of reviews (n = 8) suggested no increased effectiveness for theory-based compared to non-theory-based interventions for effectiveness of outcomes relating to health behaviour. Less than half of the RCTs included in the reviews reported the use of theory (85/183). Two reviews suggested interventions based on control theory, motivational interviewing, or self-determination theory were associated with greater effectiveness for physical activity and/or dietary interventions and outcomes. Methodological and reporting issues limit the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Theory-based interventions as currently operationalized in systematic reviews were not found to be more effective than non-theory-based interventions. Methodological and reporting issues at study and review level may not reflect the true utility of theory use within health behaviour interventions. The promotion of theory use may benefit from using a multifaceted argument, rather than a narrow focus of increased effectiveness. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Theory use is regularly promoted by claiming that it will lead to more effective behaviour change interventions. Theory use has been frequently linked to effectiveness within systematic reviews of behaviour change interventions. The theory-effectiveness hypothesis has not been systematically examined at the systematic review level. What does this study add? Theory use as operationalized by systematic review authors was not associated with increased effectiveness within systematic reviews examining randomized controlled trials of behaviour change interventions in adults. Interventions based on control theory, motivational interviewing, or self-determination theory were associated with greater effectiveness for physical activity and/or dietary interventions and outcomes. Theory use should be promoted using a multifaceted argument, and assertions for increased effectiveness of theory-based interventions should only be used in domains where specific evidence exists to support this claim.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,157 | 0,441 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,017 | 0,018 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,021 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».