Skip to main content

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.   Outcome
   N n %   Description Psy Description Psy Meth    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   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   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   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
  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   -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   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
  1. N = Number of participants approached; n = Number of participants analysed; % = Percentage of participants approached who were analysed; Psy = Psychometrics;
  2. Meth = Method of ascertainment of behaviour; Int-Bev Corr = Correspondance between measures of intention and behaviour
  3. * = Not reported; N/A = Not applicable; n.s. = non-significant; SR = Self report; Ob = Observed; PR = Patient report; D = Documented
  4. a Adjusted beta coefficient from multiple regression
  5. b R2 for multiple regression model
  6. c Path coefficient from structural equation modelling
  7. d Cronbach's alpha
  8. e Correlation coefficient
  9. f Inter-rater reliability
  10. g Internal consistency
  11. h Intra-class correlation coefficient