• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

information for practice

news, new scholarship & more from around the world


advanced search
  • gary.holden@nyu.edu
  • @ Info4Practice
  • Archive
  • About
  • Help
  • Browse Key Journals
  • RSS Feeds

A scoping review of behavioural science approaches and frameworks for health protection and emergency response

Perspectives in Public Health, Ahead of Print.
Aims:Rapid intervention development, implementation, and evaluation are required for emergency public health contexts, such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic. A novel Agile Co-production and Evaluation (ACE) framework has been developed to assist this endeavour in future public health emergencies. This scoping review aimed to map available behavioural science resources that can be used to develop and evaluate public health guidance, messaging, and interventions in emergency contexts onto components of ACE: rapid development and implementation, co-production with patients or the public including seldom heard voices from diverse communities, and inclusion of evaluation.Methods:A scoping review methodology was used. Searches were run on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Google, with search terms covering emergency response and behavioural science. Articles published since 2014 and which discussed a framework or guidance for using behavioural science in response to a public health emergency were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted.Results:Seventeen records were included in the synthesis. The records covered a range of emergency contexts, the most frequent of which were COVID-19 (n = 7) and non-specific emergencies (n = 4). One record evaluated existing approaches, 6 proposed new approaches, and 10 described existing approaches. Commonly used approaches included the Behavioural Change Wheel; Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behaviour model; and social identity theory. Three records discuss co-production with the target audience and consideration of diverse populations. Four records incorporate rapid testing, evaluation, or validation methods. Six records state that their approaches are designed to be implemented rapidly. No records cover all components of ACE.Conclusion:We recommend that future research explores how to create guidance involving rapid implementation, co-production with patients or the public including seldom heard voices from diverse communities, and evaluation.

Read the full article ›

Posted in: Meta-analyses - Systematic Reviews on 08/12/2024 | Link to this post on IFP |
Share

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Category RSS Feeds

  • Calls & Consultations
  • Clinical Trials
  • Funding
  • Grey Literature
  • Guidelines Plus
  • History
  • Infographics
  • Journal Article Abstracts
  • Meta-analyses - Systematic Reviews
  • Monographs & Edited Collections
  • News
  • Open Access Journal Articles
  • Podcasts
  • Video

© 1993-2025 Dr. Gary Holden. All rights reserved.

gary.holden@nyu.edu
@Info4Practice