Objectives Internationally, public health strategies encourage health care professionals to deliver opportunistic behaviour change interventions. The present study: (1) examines the barriers and enablers to delivering interventions during routine consultations, and (2) provides recommendations for the design of interventions to increase delivery of opportunistic behaviour change interventions. Design Qualitative interview study. Methods Twenty‐eight semi‐structured interviews were conducted with patient‐facing health care professionals. The Behaviour Change Wheel informed a framework analysis in which findings were mapped onto the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Intervention functions and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) targeting each TDF domain were identified. Results Health care professionals understood the importance of opportunistic behaviour change interventions (beliefs about consequences), but were sceptical about their capabilities to facilitate behaviour change with patients (beliefs about capabilities). Some clinicians were unwilling to discuss behaviours perceived as unrelated to the patient's visit (social/professional role and identity). Discipline‐specific tasks were prioritized, and delivering interventions was perceived as psychologically burdensome. One‐to‐one contact was favoured over busy hospital settings (environmental context and resources). Seven intervention functions (training, restriction, environmental restructuring, enablement, education, persuasion, and modelling) and eight BCT groupings (antecedents, associations, comparison of outcomes, covert learning, feedback and monitoring, natural consequences, reward and threat, and self‐belief) were identified. Conclusions Across disciplines, health care professionals see the value of opportunistic behaviour change interventions. Barriers related to workload, the clinical environment, competence, and perceptions of the health care professional role must be addressed, using appropriate intervention functions and BCTs, in order to support health care professionals to increase the delivery of interventions in routine practice. What is already known on this subject? Brief, opportunistic interventions can be a cost effective way of addressing population health problems. Public health policies compel health care professionals to deliver behaviour change interventions opportunistically. Health care professionals do not always deliver interventions opportunistically during routine medical consultations; however the barriers and enablers are currently unclear. What does this study add? This is the first study to examine cross‐disciplinary barriers and enablers to delivering opportunistic behaviour change interventions. Across diverse professional groups, working in different medical professions, participants saw the value of delivering opportunistic behaviour change interventions. Targeting key theoretical domains that are shared across professional groups may be useful for increasing the delivery of opportunistic behaviour change...

Objectives. The Capabilities, Opportunities, Motivations, Behaviour (COM-B) model is being used extensively to inform intervention design, but there is no standard measure with which to test the predictive validity of COM or to assess the impact of interventions on COM. We describe the development, reliability, validity, and acceptability of a generic 6-item self-evaluation COM questionnaire.Design and methods. The questionnaire was formulated by behaviour change experts. Acceptability was tested in two independent samples of health care professionals (N = 13 and N = 85, respectively) and a sample of people with low socio-economic status (N = 214). Acceptability (missing data analyses and user feedback), reliability (testretest reliability and Bland-Altman plots) and validity (floor and ceiling effects, Pearson's correlation coefficient [r], exploratory factor analysis [EFA], and confirmatory factor analysis [CFA]) were tested using a national survey of 1,387 health care professionals.Results. The questionnaire demonstrated acceptability (missing data for individual items: 5.9-7.7% at baseline and 18.1-32.5% at follow-up), reliability (ICCs .554-.833), and validity (floor effects 0.6-5.5% and ceiling effects 4.1-22.9%; pairwise correlations rs significantly <1.0). The regression models accounted for between 21 and 47% of the variance in behaviour. CFA (three-factor model) demonstrated a good model fit, (v 2 [6] = 7.34, p = .29, RMSEA = .02, CFI = .99, TLI = .99, BIC = 13,510.420, AIC = 13,428.067).Conclusions. The novel six-item questionnaire shows evidence of acceptability, validity, and reliability for self-evaluating capabilities, opportunities, and motivations. Future research should aim to use this tool in different populations to obtain further support for its reliability and validity.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

Current management of COFP is ineffective and unsatisfactory for patients and practitioners, which impacts on their relationship. Fundamental barriers to accessing and implementing psychological interventions for COFP arise from ineffective communication between physicians and patients, and between medical and dental practitioners. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? COFP is characterized by persistent pain in the face, mouth, or jaws that are not the result of organic disease or physical trauma. Patients with COFP present to both medical and dental services and receive sub-optimal care. No studies have examined the experiences of managing this problem from the perspectives of dentists, general practitioners and patients. What does this study add? Patients, dentists, and GPs recognize the role that psychological factors have in maintaining and addressing facial pain symptoms, yet principally manage it through biomedical interventions. Challenges exist over arriving at a diagnosis and managing the problem, and challenges are exacerbated by poor communication between doctors and medical services. Improvements are needed in liaison between medical and dental services and further training to support primary care clinicians to facilitate a stepped care approach to managing COFP.