PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Flowers, Paul
AU  - Leiser, Ruth
AU  - Mapp, Fiona
AU  - McLeod, Julie
AU  - Stirrup, Oliver
AU  - Illingworth, Christopher JR
AU  - Blackstone, James
AU  - Breuer, Judith
TI  - A qualitative process evaluation using the behaviour change wheel approach: Did a whole genome sequence report form (SRF) used to reduce nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 within UK hospitals operate as anticipated?
AID  - 10.1101/2022.08.30.22279427
DP  - 2022 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2022.08.30.22279427
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/09/01/2022.08.30.22279427.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/09/01/2022.08.30.22279427.full
AB  - To conduct a process evaluation of a whole genome sequence report form (SRF) used to reduce nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 through changing infection prevention and control (IPC) behaviours. Here using qualitative behavioural analyses we report how the SRF worked.Methods Prior to a multisite non-randomised trial of its effectiveness, the SRF was coded in relation to its putative behaviour change content (using the theoretical domains framework (TDF), the behaviour change wheel (BCW) and the behaviour change technique taxonomy (BCTTv1)). After the SRF had been used, through the peak of the Alpha variant, we conducted in-depth interviews from diverse professional staff (N=39) from a heterogeneous purposive sub-sample of hospital trial sites (n=5/14). Deductive thematic analysis explored participants’ accounts of using the SRF according to its putative content in addition to inductive exploration of their experiences.Results We found empirical support for the putative theoretical mechanisms of ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Behavioural regulation’, as well as for intervention functions of ‘Education’ and ‘Persuasion’ and ‘Enablement’, and for particular BCTs ‘1.2 Problem solving’, ‘2.6 Biofeedback’, ‘2.7 Feedback on outcomes of behaviour’, and ‘7.1 Prompts and cues’. Most participants found the SRF useful and believed it could shape IPC behaviour.Conclusions Our process evaluation of the SRF provided granular and general support for the SRF working to change IPC behaviours. Our analysis highlighted useful SRF content. However, we also note that, without complementary work on systematically embedding the SRF within routine practice and wider hospital systems, it may not reach its full potential to reduce nosocomial infection.What is already known on this subject?Health psychology remains under-exploited within infection prevention and control (IPC) interventionsFor genomic insights to be understood by a range of health care professionals and elicit changes in IPC behaviour, ways of translating complex genomic insights into a simple format are needed. These simple translation tools can be described as whole genome sequence report forms (SRFs)Nothing is currently known about the use of SRFs, for SARS-CoV-2 or other infections, to change hospital-based IPC behaviour.Health psychological tools such as the behaviour change wheel (BCW), the theoretical domains framework (TDF), and the behaviour change technique taxonomy (BCTTv1) are widely used to develop behaviour change interventions but are rarely used to evaluate themContemporary guidance on conducting process evaluations highlights the value of explicitly theorising how an intervention is intended to work before systematically examining how it actually worked in practiceWhat does this study add?The paper presents a novel worked example of using tools from health psychology within a qualitative process evaluation of using an SRF during the COVID-19 pandemic in UK hospitalsThis paper is the first to report how people experienced using whole genome sequence report forms (SRFs) in order to change hospital-based IPC behaviourWe provide qualitative evidence detailing empirical support for much of the SRF’s putative content, including casual mechanisms ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Behavioural regulation’, intervention functions such as ‘Education’ and ‘Enablement’, and for particular BCTs: ‘1.2 Problem solving’, ‘2.6 Biofeedback’, ‘2.7 Feedback on outcomes of behaviour’, and ‘7.1 Prompts and cues’Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialNCT04405934Clinical Protocols https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/ysm35/ Funding StatementThis work was supported by funding from the Medical Research Council (MRC) part of UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) [grant code: MC_PC_19027], and Genome Research Limited, operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval was given by Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee (20/EE/0118).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesGiven the qualitative and sensitive nature of the data underpinning the analyses data are not available