Table 2 Summary of included study characteristics and results
From: Do self- reported intentions predict clinicians' behaviour: a systematic review
Study | 1. Type of participants 2. Target population 3. Sampling strategy | Participants approached and analysed | 1. Theoretical framework 2. Target behaviour | Measure of intention | Measure of behaviour | Int-Bev corr. | Â | Outcome | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Â | Â | N | n | % | Â | Description | Psy | Description | Psy | Meth | Â | Â | beta (SE) | p | R2 |
Millstein16 | 1. Primary care physicians 2. California, USA 3. Stratified random sample from AMA Masterfile | 2087 | 765 | (37%) | 1. TRA, TPB 2. Patient education | % patients they intended to educate | NA | % patients they educated | NA | SR | Good | TRA: TRB: | 0.56a 0.49a | < 0.0001 < 0.0001 | 0.37b 0.40b |
Farris17 | 1. Community pharmacists 2. All practising in Alberta, Canada 3. Random sample | 320 | 182 | (57%) | 1. "Theory of goal-oriented behaviour"; included perceived behavioural control 2. Provision of pharmatceutical care activities | 2 items, 7 point scale | * | 20 items, No. of care activities provided | NA | SR | Good | Â | 0.52c (0.11) | < 0.001 | - |
Godin18 | 1. Nurses 2. One regional hospital, Canada 3. All approached | 238 | 105 | (44%) | 1. TPB; TIB 2. Adherence to universal precautions for venepuncture | 4 items, 7-point scale | 0.82d | No. of times adhered to universal precautions for last 10 venepunctures performed | NA | SR | Good | Â | 0.37 | 0.001 | 0.25 |
Hoppe19 | 1. Primary care nurses 2. 4 districts, UK 3. Random sample of GP practices, one nurse recruited from each practice | 260 | 132 | (51%) | 1. TRA, TPB 2. Patient education | 5 items, 7 point scale | 0.91d | 1 item, 7 point scale | NA | SR | Good | Â | 0.56 | < 0.001 | 0.31 |
O'Boyle20 | 1. Nurses 2. 4 hospitals, USA 3. All approached | 474 | 120 | (25%) | 1. TPB 2. Adherence to hand hygiene regulations | 5 items, 7-point scale | 0.74d | % times practised hand hygiene | 0.94 to 0.98f | SR Ob | Unclear Unclear | Â | 0.39 0.09 | < 0.01 > 0.05 | 0.15 0.01 |
Lambert21 | 1. Primary care physicians 2. 5 clinics in one HMO, USA 3. All approached | 39 | 19 | (49%) | 1. TRA 2. Antibiotic preference | 7-point scale for each of 7 drugs | N/A | No. of prescriptions for each drug as % of prescriptions for all 7 drugs | NA | Ob | Unclear | Â | -0.42 to 0.33 | All n.s. | 0.0 to 0.18 |
Bernaix22 | 1. Hospital nurses 2. 2 hospitals, USA 3. Sampled – sampling strategy not reported | 52 | 49 | (94%) | 1. TRA 2. Provision of maternal support | 3 items, 7 point scale | 0.93d | 46 items, 5 point scale | 0.91 to 0.95g | PR | Unclear |  | * | n.s. | * |
Renfroe23 | 1. Hospital nurses 2. 3 hospitals, USA 3. All approached | 138 | 108 | (78%) | 1. TRA 2. Documentation | 2 items, 7 point scale, % patients likely to document | 0.66e | 20 item checklist, No. of items documented | 0.71g 0.84h | D | Poor | Â | 0.41 (0.14) | 0.003 | 0.15 |
Harrell24 | 1. Primary care physicians 2. 11 metropolitan areas, eastern USA 3. Sampled from existing physician panel – sampling strategy not reported | 104 | 93 | (89%) | 1. TRA 2. Drug preference | 7-point scale for each of 5 drugs | N/A | Most frequently prescribed drug | NA | D | Poor |  | 0.27 to 0.52 | 0.015 to 0.001 | 0.07 to 0.27 |
Quinn25 | 1. Nurses 2. General medical and surgical wards of one hospital, USA 3. All working on a specific day | 65 | 50 | (77%) | 1. TRA 2. Documentation of teaching | 1 item, 7 point scale | N/A | No. of patients with documentation of teaching/No. of patients assigned | 0.76f | D | Good | R1: R2: | 0.08 0.02 | > 0.05 > 0.05 | 0.01 0.00 |