PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - P. Flowers AU - G. Vojt AU - M. Pothoulaki AU - F. Mapp AU - M. Woode Owusu AU - J. A. Cassell AU - C. Estcourt AU - J. Saunders TI - Using the behaviour change wheel approach to optimise self-sampling packs for sexually transmitted infection and blood borne viruses AID - 10.1101/2021.07.06.21258646 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.07.06.21258646 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/07/2021.07.06.21258646.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/07/2021.07.06.21258646.full AB - Purpose This paper describes the process of optimising a widely offered intervention - the self-sampling pack for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and blood born viruses (BBVs). We drew upon the BCW approach, incorporating the theoretical domains framework (TDF) and the behaviour change technique taxonomy (BCTT) to systematically specify potential intervention components that may optimise the packs.Methods A behaviour change wheel analysis built upon prior thematic analyses of qualitative data collected through focus groups and interviews with members of the public and people recruited from sexual health clinics in Glasgow and London (n=56). Salient barriers and facilitators to specific sequential behavioural domains associated with wider behavioural system of pack-use were subjected to further analyses, coding them in relation to the TDF, the BCW’s intervention functions, and finally specifying potential optimisation in relation to behaviour change techniques (BCTs).Results Our TDF analysis suggested that across the overall behavioural system of pack use the most important theoretical domains were ‘beliefs about consequences’ and ‘memory, attention and decision-making’. BCW analysis on the overall pack suggested useful intervention functions should focus on ‘environmental restructuring’, ‘persuasion’, ‘enablement’, ‘education’ and ‘modelling’. Ways of optimising the intervention were also specified in relation to potentially useful behaviour change techniques (BCTs).Conclusions A detailed behavioural analysis building on earlier qualitative work using the TDF and the BCW provided a systematic approach to optimising an existing intervention. The approach enabled the specification of highly specific, evidence-based, and theoretically informed recommendations for intervention optimisation.What is already known on this subject?The use of self-sampling packs for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and blood borne viruses (BBVs) has been widely implemented without in-depth assessment of user perspectives, adequate theorisation in relation to behaviour change, or optimisationIn a previous qualitative study we reported on our use of thematic analyses (inductive and deductive) to understand the behavioural system of using self-sampling packs. We identified multiple modifiable barriers, and several important facilitators to using these packs, and their content, correctlyOur thematic analyses showed that self-sampling packs offered a largely acceptable approach to STI and BBV testing and that with some modification it may be possible to increase both the range of people who can benefit from them and increase the return of samplesWhat does this study add?This study theorises key barriers and facilitators to each sequential step within the behavioural system of using the self-sampling pack. Across the whole behavioural system of pack use we identified ‘beliefs about consequences’ and ‘memory, attention and decision-making’ as being particularly important theoretical domainsTo optimise self-sampling packs for STIs, our use of the behaviour change wheel suggested that to modify the pack we should use intervention functions that detail environmental restructuring and assist the user using pack contents through persuasion and enablement with some education and modellingThe study provides an exemplar of how to use the behaviour change wheel within the process of intervention optimisation when building upon prior qualitative analyses. The results informed the redesign of the pack and the development of on-line support materials to be used within a large multi-site trialCompeting Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialRP-PG-0614-20009Clinical Protocols https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/3/e034806 Funding StatementThis work presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (reference number RP-PG-0614-20009).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 from Glasgow Caledonian University Research Ethics Committee (HLS/PSWAHS/A15/256) and NHS Ethics Approval (16/NI/0211) were obtained.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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.YesData available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.