PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9768376

Intervention mapping: a process for developing theory- and evidence-based health education programs.

Abstract

The practice of health education involves three major program-planning activities: needs assessment, program development, and evaluation. Over the past 20 years, significant enhancements have been made to the conceptual base and practice of health education. Models that outline explicit procedures and detailed conceptualization of community assessment and evaluation have been developed. Other advancements include the application of theory to health education and promotion program development and implementation. However, there remains a need for more explicit specification of the processes by which one uses theory and empirical findings to develop interventions. This article presents the origins, purpose, and description of Intervention Mapping, a framework for health education intervention development. Intervention Mapping is composed of five steps: (1) creating a matrix of proximal program objectives, (2) selecting theory-based intervention methods and practical strategies, (3) designing and organizing a program, (4) specifying adoption and implementation plans, and (5) generating program evaluation plans.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L K Bartholomew, G S Parcel, G Kok. 1998. Intervention mapping: a process for developing theory- and evidence-based health education programs.. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819802500502

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessment of decision support for blood test ordering in primary care. a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Different methods for changing blood test-ordering behavior in primary care have been proven effective. However, randomized trials comparing these methods are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of two versions of BloodLink, a computer-based clinical decision support system, on blood test ordering among general practitioners. DESIGN: Randomized trial. SETTING: 44 practices of general practitioners in the region of Delft, the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 60 general practitioners in 44 practices who used computer-based patient records in their practices. INTERVENTION: After stratification by solo practices and group practices, practices were randomly assigned to use BloodLink-Restricted, which initially displays a reduced list of tests, or BloodLink-Guideline, which is based on the guidelines of the Dutch College of General Practitioners. MEASUREMENTS: Average number of blood tests ordered per order form per practice. RESULTS: General practitioners who used BloodLink-Guideline requested 20% fewer tests on average than did practitioners who used BloodLink-Restricted (mean [+/-SD], 5.5 +/- 0.9 tests vs. 6.9 +/- 1.6 tests, respectively; P = 0.003, Mann-Whitney test). CONCLUSIONS: Decision support based on guidelines is more effective in changing blood test-ordering behavior than is decision support based on initially displaying a limited number of tests. Guideline-driven decision support systems can be effective in reducing the number of laboratory tests ordered by primary care practitioners.

Decision Support Techniques↗