This article provides a practical example of how to apply a theory-driven approach to research intervention and protocol design. It illustrates how reflection on both intervention theory and programme theory can inform and refine the: implementation of the intervention; research design; specification of research questions and tools; and, identify the contribution each research stage makes in the accumulation of policy-relevant learning. The article presents the logic models, associated theory and learning from the development of a pilot randomized control trial/feasibility study of a walking intervention targeting older adults.
AbrahamCMichieS (2008) A taxonomy of behaviour change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychology27(3): 379–87.
2.
BakerGGraySWrightAFitzsimonsCNimmoMLowryRMutrieNand the Scottish Physical Activity Research Collaboration (2008) The effect of a pedometer-based community walking intervention ‘Walking for Wellbeing in the West’ on physical activity levels and health outcomes: a 12-week randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity5: 44–9.
3.
BaumanASallisJDzewaltowskiDOwenN (2002) Toward a better understanding of the influences on physical activity: the roles of determinants, correlates, causal variables, mediators, moderators, and confounders. American Journal of Preventive Medicine23(2S): 5–14.
4.
BiddleSJHMutrieN (2008) Psychology of Physical Activity: Determinants, Well-Being and Interventions, 2nd edn.London: Routledge.
5.
BiddleSJHMutrieNGorelyTBlameyA (2011) Interventions for physical activity and sedentary behaviour. In: RobertsGCTreasureD (eds) Motivation in Sport and Exercise, Vol. 3. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
6.
BlameyAMackenzieM (2007) Theories of change and realistic evaluation: peas in a pod or apples and oranges?Evaluation13(4): 439–55.
7.
ChenH (1990) Theory Driven Evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
8.
ConnellJPKubischAC (1998) Applying a theory of change approach to the evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: progress, prospects and problems. In: Fulbright-AndersonKAKubischACConnellJP (eds) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives. Volume 2: Theory, Measurement and Analysis. Round Table on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
9.
ConnellJPKubischACSchorrLBWeissCH (eds) (1995) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives. Volume 1: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts. Round Table on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
10.
CraigPDieppePMacintyreSMitchieSNazarethIPetticrewM (2008) Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. British Medical Journal337: 979–83.
11.
DavidoffFBataldenPStevensDOgrincGMooneyS (2008) Publication guidelines for improvement studies in healthcare: evolution of the SQUIRE Project. Annals of Internal Medicine149(9): 670–6.
12.
DavidsonKGoldsteinMKaplanRM (2003) Evidence-based behavioral medicine: what it is and how do we achieve it?Annals of Behavioral Medicine26: 161–71.
13.
Department of Health (2011) Start Active, Stay Active: A Report on Physical Activity for Health from the Four Home Countries. Chief Medical Officers.
14.
FitzsimonsCBakerGWrightANimmoMWard ThompsonCLowryRMillingtonCShawRFenwickEOgilvieD (2008) The ‘Walking for Wellbeing in the West’ randomised controlled trial of a pedometer-based walking programme in combination with physical activity consultation with 12 month follow-up: rationale and study design. BMC Public Health8: 259.
15.
Fulbright-AndersonKKubischACConnellJP (eds) (1998) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives. Volume Two: Theory, Measurement and Analysis. Round Table on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
16.
FritzMFClelandJ (2003) Effectiveness versus efficacy: more than a debate over language. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sport Physical Therapy33(4): 163–5.
17.
GlasgowREVogtTMBolesSM (1999) Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health89(9): 1322–7.
18.
GlasgowRELichtensteinEMarcusAC (2003) Why don’t we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. American Journal of Public Health93(8): 1261–7.
19.
HaskellWLLeeIMPateRRPowellKEBlairSNFranklinBA (2007) Physical activity and public health – updated recommendation for adults from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Circulation116(9): 1081–93.
20.
HealyGNWijndaeleKDunstanDWShawJESalmonJZimmetPZOwenN (2008) Objectively measured sedentary time, physical activity, and metabolic risk: the Australian diabetes, obesity and lifestyle study (AusDiab). Diabetes Care31(2): 369–71.
21.
JenkinsonCStewart-BrownSPetersenSPaiceC (1999) Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health53: 46–50.
KatzmarzykPTChurchTSCraigCLBouchardC (2009) Sitting time and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease and cancer. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise41(5): 998–1005.
KirkABarnettJLeeseGMutrieN (2009) A randomized trial investigating the 12-month changes in physical activity and health outcomes following a physical activity consultation delivered by a person or in written form in Type 2 diabetes: Time2Act. Diabetes Medicine26(3): 293–301.
26.
LoughlanCMutrieN (1995) Recruitment of NHS staff for a workplace exercise programme using and adapted ‘stages of change’ exercise questionnaire. Journal of Sports Sciences13: 63–4.
27.
MackenzieMBlameyA (2005) The practice and the theory: lessons from the application of a Theories of Change approach. Evaluation11(2): 151–68.
28.
MarcusBHSimkinLR (1994) The transtheoretical model: applications to exercise behaviour. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise26(11): 1400–4.
29.
MayneJ (2001) Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: using performance measures sensibly. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation16(1): 1–24.
30.
MacMillanFFitzsimonsCBlackKGranatMGrantPMGrealyMMacdonaldHMcConnachieARoweDAShawRSkeltonDAMutrieN (2011) West End Walkers 65+: a randomised controlled trial of a primary care-based walking intervention for older adults: study rationale and design. BMC Public Health11: 120.
31.
MorrisJNHardmanAE (1997) Walking to health. Sports Medicine23: 306–33.
32.
MutrieNDoolinOFitzsimonsCFGrantPMGranatM (2012) Increasing older adults’ walking through primary care: results of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Family Practice Advance Access published July28.
33.
MurphyMHNevillAMMurtaghEMHolderRL (2007) The effect of walking on fitness, fatness and resting blood pressure: a meta-analysis of randomised, controlled trials. Preventive Medicine44: 377–85.
34.
NelsonMERejeskiWJBlairSNDuncanPWJudgeJOKingACMaceraCACastaneda-SceppaC (2007) Physical activity and public health in older adults: recommendation from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Circulation116: 1094–105.
35.
National Institute for Health Research Evaluation. Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre: glossary. URL (consulted 3 October 2012): http://www.netscc.ac.uk/glossary/
36.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2007) Behvaiour change at population, community and individual level. NICE Public Health Guidance 6. URL (consulted 3 October 2012): http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11868/37987/37987.pdf
37.
OgilvieDFosterCERothnieHCavillNHamiltonVFitzsimonsCFMutrieNon behalf of Scottish Physical Activity Research Collaboration (2007) Interventions to promote walking: systematic review. British Medical Journal334: 1204–7.
38.
PawsonR (2006) Evidence Based Policy: A Realist Perspective. London: SAGE.
PotterLMGrealyMAO’ConnorRC (2009) Healthy ageing, perceived motor-efficacy, and performance on cognitively demanding action tasks. British Journal of Psychology100: 49–70.
41.
RussellDW (1996) UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment66: 20–40.
42.
Scottish Executive (2003) Let’s Make Scotland More Active. Crown Copyright Edinburgh.
StameN (2004) Theory-based evaluation and varieties of complexity. Evaluation10(1): 58–76.
45.
TrostSGOwenNBaumanAESallisJFBrownW (2002) Correlates of adults’ participation in physical activity: review and update. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise34: 1996–2001.
46.
TroughtonJJarvisJSkinnerCRobertsonNKhuntiKDaviesMTudor-LockeCLutesL (2009) Why do pedometers work? A reflection upon the factors related to successfully increasing physical activity. Sports Medicine39(12): 981–93.
47.
WatsonDClarkLATellegenA (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology54: 1063–70.
48.
WeissCH (1995) Nothing as practical as a good theory: exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In: ConnellJPKubischAWeissC H (eds) Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
49.
WeissCH (1998) Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
