BackgroundThe NHS Health Check (NHSHC) is a national programme for the prevention of non-communicable diseases. Patients aged 40–74 without an existing cardiovascular-related condition should be invited quinquennially. Uptake is lower than anticipated. We assessed the impact on uptake of two new behaviourally-enhanced leaflets (with the current national leaflet as a control), enclosed with the invitation letter: the first trial on the leaflet.MethodsA double-blind three-armed randomized controlled trial was conducted. The new leaflets were shorter (two pages, instead of four); one was loss-framed (‘don’t miss out’) and the other was gain-framed (‘make the most of life’). The participants were patients from 39 practices in Lewisham and 17 practices in NE Lincolnshire, who were allocated to interventions using a random-number generator and received one of the leaflets with their invitation letter from April–September 2018. The outcome measure was uptake of an NHSHC by November 2018. The trial was powered to detect a 2% effect.ResultsUptake was 17.6% in the control condition (n = 3677), 17.4% in the loss-framed condition (n = 3664), and 18.2% in the gain-framed condition (n = 3697). Leaflet type was not a significant predictor of NHSHC uptake in a logistic regression that controlled for demographic variables, with GP practice as a random effect. Statistically significant predictors of uptake included location (higher uptake in Lewisham), age (increased age was associated with increased attendance) and sex (higher uptake in females). The Bayes Factor comparing the null to a hypothesis of differences between conditions was 416, which is extreme evidence in favour of the null hypothesis.ConclusionThere was no evidence for a meaningful effect of either a loss-framed or gain-framed behaviourally-informed leaflet type on uptake, which is surprising, given that behaviourally informed letters have improved uptake of NHSHCs. It is possible that people do not pay attention to leaflets that are enclosed with letters, or that the leaflet continues to support informed decision-making but this does not affect uptake.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT03524131. Registered May 14, 2018. Retrospectively registered.

Objective: This Strategic Behavioural Analysis aimed to: identify barriers and facilitators to healthcare professionals' implementation of MECC; code behavioural components of nationally delivered interventions to improve MECC implementation; assess the extent to which these components are theoretically congruent with identified theoretical domains representing barriers and facilitators. Comparing national interventions that aim to support implementation of behaviour change related activity to the barriers and facilitators for the target behaviour enables identification of opportunities being missed in practice thereby facilitating intervention optimisation. Methods: A mixed-methods study involving: a systematic review to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing MECC classified using the COM-B model and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF); a content analysis of national interventions to improve MECC implementation in England using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) and Behaviour Change Techniques Taxonomy (BCTTv1); linking intervention content to barriers identified in the systematic review. Results: Across 27 studies, the most frequently-reported barriers related to eight TDF domains: Environmental Context and Resources, Beliefs About Capabilities, Knowledge, Beliefs About Consequences, Intentions, Skills, Social Professional Role and Identity, Emotions. National interventions aimed at supporting MECC implementation included on average 5.1 BCW intervention functions (Education, Modelling, Persuasion, Training were used in all interventions) and 8.7 BCTs. Only 21% of BCTs potentially relevant to key domains were used across interventions. The majority of BCTs linked to seven of the eight most important domains were not used in any existing interventions. Conclusions: Intervention developers should seize missed opportunities by incorporating more theoretically relevant BCTs to target barriers to implementing MECC.

This systematic review and intervention content analysis used behavioural science frameworks to characterise content and function of interventions targeting supermarket shoppers' purchasing behaviour, and explore if coherence between content and function was linked to intervention effectiveness. Study eligibility: in-store interventions (physical supermarkets) with control conditions, targeting objectively measured food and/or non-alcoholic drink purchases, published in English (no date restrictions). Eleven electronic databases were searched; reference lists of systematic reviews were hand-searched. Methodological quality was assessed using the GATE checklist. A content analysis was performed to characterise intervention content and function, and theoretical coherence between these, using the Behaviour Change Wheel, Behaviour Change Techniques Taxonomy, and Typology of Interventions in Proximal Physical Micro-Environments (TIPPME). Fortysix articles (49 interventions) met inclusion criteria; 26 articles (32 interventions) were included in the content analysis. Twenty behaviour change techniques (BCTs), and four TIPPME intervention types were identified; three BCTs ('Prompts/cues', 'Material incentive', and 'Material reward') were more common in effective interventions. Nineteen interventions solely employed theoretically appropriate BCTs. Theoretical coherence between BCTs and intervention functions was more common in effective interventions. Effective interventions included price promotions and/or in-store merchandising. Future research should explore the effect of specific BCTs using factorial study designs. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42017071065.

Objectives Screening can detect cancer earlier. Uptake of breast, cervical, and bowel cancer screening in England is below 75%. This study identifies the barriers and facilitators underpinning HCP screening behaviours which can support screening uptake, and reviews the design of real‐world interventions targeting these, assessing for congruence between the two. The aim was to provide recommendations to improve the design of interventions. Design and methods Barriers/facilitators were identified by a literature review and qualitatively coded using the theoretical domains framework (TDF). Interventions were identified by stakeholders and coded using the behaviour change wheel and the taxonomy of behaviour change techniques. Congruence was assessed through comparing the intervention designs with behavioural science experts’ recommendations which link the TDF domains to intervention design. Recommendations targeted missed opportunities. Results Barriers/facilitators were extracted from 60 papers and most frequently coded to the TDF domains: environmental context and resources, knowledge and beliefs about consequences. Thirty‐one interventions were identified, most frequently education, training or enablement functions, delivered via communication/marketing or service provision, and using BCTs designed to shape knowledge or highlight the consequences of or antecedents to screening. Intervention design was largely congruent with recommendations. However, there was less use of persuasion and modelling intervention functions and a reliance on BCTs such as providing instruction when other BCTs could be considered. Conclusions Recommendations include to consider a broader range of intervention functions and BCTs, particularly for training interventions which should make use of recommended BCTs such as ‘graded tasks’.