Nothing so practical as theory: a rapid review of the use of behaviour change theory in family planning interventions involving men and boys.
Nothing so practical as theory: a rapid review of the use of behaviour change theory in family planning interventions involving men and boys.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12978-021-01173-0
复制
发表时间：
2021-06-13
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Lohan M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Robinson M;Aventin Á;Hanratty J;Ruane-McAteer E;Tomlinson M;Clarke M;Okonofua F;Lohan M
越来越多的人认识到，有必要采取干预措施，使男子和男孩有效参与，以促进计划生育行为。有证据表明，这一领域最有效的行为干预措施建立在行为改变和性别平等的理论原则之上。然而，关于如何在这一背景下应用理论方法来指导干预发展的最佳实践，几乎没有证据综合。本审查通过审查涉及男子和男孩的计划生育干预措施所使用的行为改变理论的应用和报告来解决这一差距。我们采用了系统的快速审查方法，确定了先前报告的证据的范围和干预审查的差距图(涵盖2007-2018年)，并以2007年至2020年发表的综述和其他研究的学术数据库和灰色文献搜索为补充。如果研究的标题、摘要或关键词提到针对计划生育行为的心理社会或行为干预，涉及男性参与分娩，并详细说明其使用干预变革理论，则有资格纳入这些研究。在确定的941条非重复记录中，有63条符合列入条件。大多数记录提到干预措施发生在低收入和中等收入国家(65%)。已报道了一系列关于改变的干预理论，通常针对个人层面的行为，有时包括几种行为改变理论和策略。最常见的理论是社会认知理论、社会学习理论、计划行为理论和信息-动机-行为技能(IMB)模型。少数记录在其变革理论中明确详细说明了性别因素。我们的调查结果突出表明，在涉及男子和男孩的计划生育干预措施中，普遍使用的变革理论范围很广，而且他们的报告也有相当大的差异。对变化的干预理论进行统一的报告和测试，将是对程序员和政策制定者最好的服务。仍然需要一致地报告这些情况，以便更好地了解寻求让男子和男孩参与计划生育的复杂干预措施如何可能导致行为改变。计划生育(FP)方案旨在使人们能够达到他们想要的家庭规模。成功的方案对于鼓励个人和家庭获得更好的健康结果至关重要。从历史上看，计划生育方案侧重于妇女和女童的性健康和生殖健康及权利，虽然这是必要的，但也导致男子和男孩被排除在计划生育方案之外。然而，越来越多的证据表明，让男性和男孩参与计划生育可能会增加其摄取量，并改善所有人的健康结果。然而，我们仍然对让男子和男孩参与计划生育方案以确保成功的最佳方式知之甚少。纠正这一问题的研究正在进行中。当我们总体上审视公共卫生行为改变计划时，我们发现许多成功的计划将行为改变理论融入到其设计中。这些理论指导该方案为促进行为改变而采用的活动和材料的种类。在FP领域，关于可能用于设计程序的行为改变理论种类的信息很少。这篇综述旨在通过回顾涉及男性和男孩的全球计划生育计划文献来解决这一问题，以确定相关的行为改变理论。我们发现了一系列对节目策划者有用的理论。然而，我们也发现，在报道理论的方式上存在很大的变异性。我们就如何解决这个问题提出了建议。
There is growing recognition of the need for interventions that effectively involve men and boys to promote family planning behaviours. Evidence suggests that the most effective behavioural interventions in this field are founded on theoretical principles of behaviour change and gender equality. However, there are few evidence syntheses on how theoretical approaches are applied in this context that might guide best practice in intervention development. This review addresses this gap by examining the application and reporting of theories of behaviour change used by family planning interventions involving men and boys. We adopted a systematic rapid review approach, scoping findings of a previously reported evidence and gap map of intervention reviews (covering 2007–2018) and supplementing this with searches of academic databases and grey literature for reviews and additional studies published between 2007 and 2020. Studies were eligible for inclusion if their title, abstract or keywords referred to a psychosocial or behavioural intervention targeting family planning behaviours, involved males in delivery, and detailed their use of an intervention theory of change. From 941 non-duplicate records identified, 63 were eligible for inclusion. Most records referenced interventions taking place in low- and middle-income countries (65%). There was a range of intervention theories of change reported, typically targeting individual-level behaviours and sometimes comprising several behaviour change theories and strategies. The most commonly identified theories were Social Cognitive Theory, Social Learning Theory, the Theory of Planned Behaviour, and the Information-Motivation-Behaviour Skills (IMB) Model. A minority of records explicitly detailed gender-informed elements within their theory of change. Our findings highlight the range of prevailing theories of change used for family planning interventions involving men and boys, and the considerable variability in their reporting. Programmers and policy makers would be best served by unified reporting and testing of intervention theories of change. There remains a need for consistent reporting of these to better understand how complex interventions that seek to involve men and boys in family planning may lead to behaviour change. Family planning (FP) programmes aim to enable people to achieve their desired family size. Successful programmes are essential for encouraging better health outcomes for individuals and families. Historically, FP programmes have focused on the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women and girls, and while this is necessary, it has also contributed to the exclusion of men and boys from FP programmes. There is growing evidence to suggest, however, that involving men and boys in FP may increase its uptake and improve health outcomes for all. However, we still know relatively little about the best ways to involve men and boys in FP programmes in order to ensure success. Research is ongoing to rectify this. When we look at public health behaviour change programmes in general, we find that many successful programmes incorporate theories of behaviour change into their design. These theories guide the kinds of activities and materials that the programme employs in order to promote behaviour change. In the field of FP, there is little information about the kinds of behaviour change theories that might be used to design programmes. This review aimed to address this by reviewing the global literature on FP programmes that involved men and boys to identify relevant behaviour-change theories. We found a range of theories that will be of use to programme planners. We also found, however, that there was lots of variability in the way theories were reported. We make recommendations for how this problem might be resolved.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4.4
作者：
Kraft JM;Wilkins KG;Morales GJ;Widyono M;Middlestadt SE
通讯作者：
Middlestadt SE
DOI：
10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t
发表时间：
1991-12-01
影响因子：
4.6
作者：
AJZEN, I
通讯作者：
AJZEN, I
男人对计划生育计划的服务很好吗？
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
Hardee K;Croce-Galis M;Gay J
通讯作者：
Gay J
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
Jennings, J. M.;Howard, S.;Perotte, C. L.
通讯作者：
Perotte, C. L.
DOI：
10.1363/4103115
发表时间：
2015-03-01
影响因子：
4.4
作者：
Haberland, Nicole A.
通讯作者：
Haberland, Nicole A.