Table 1 Mapping the approaches used according to an intervention development taxonomy (see O’Cathain et al. [12]
|  | Category | Sub-category: specific approach described in an article | N = 87 | Subset selected for analysis n = 30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Partnership | Community based participatory research | 3 | 2 |
Collaborative process | 2 | 1 | ||
Community engaged | 2 | 1 | ||
Others: co-produced, participatory ergonomics, concept mapping | 3 | 3 | ||
2 | Target population centred | User centric | 1 | 0 |
3 | Theory and evidence | MRC guidance | 4 | 2 |
Behaviour Change Wheel | 4 | 1 | ||
COM-B, Theoretical Domains Framework, or both | 4 | 2 | ||
Intervention Mapping | 4 | 4 | ||
Combinations within this category, e.g. Behaviour Change Wheel within MRC guidance | 3 | 1 | ||
Others, e.g. normalisation process theory, theory of change, behaviour change techniques | 3 | 0 | ||
4 | Implementation | – |  |  |
5 | Efficiency | Experimental: multiple point baseline design | 1 | 0 |
6 | Stepped or phased | Five actions model | 1 | 1 |
7 | Intervention-specific | Digital | 2 | 1 |
For children/youth: deployment-focused model | 1 | 0 | ||
8 | Combination of categories | Examples include Behaviour Change Wheel and user-centred, or theory- and person-based approach | 6 | 3 |
9 | Pragmatic | No obvious framing | 21 | 5 |
Methods framing: mixed methods, qualitative, formative | 10 | 2 | ||
Partnership framing | 4 | 1 | ||
Theory and evidence framing | 4 | 0 | ||
Others, e.g. consensus | 4 | 0 |