A checklist to improve reporting of group-based behaviour-change interventions

Background Published descriptions of group-based behaviour-change interventions (GB-BCIs) often omit design and delivery features specific to the group setting. This impedes the ability to compare behaviour-change interventions, synthesise evidence on their effectiveness and replicate effective interventions. The aim of this study was to develop a checklist of elements that should be described to ensure adequate reporting of GB-BCIs. Methods A range of characteristics needed to replicate GB-BCIs were extracted from the literature and precisely defined. An abbreviated checklist and a coder manual were developed, pilot tested and refined. The final checklist and coder manual were used to identify the presence or absence of specified reporting elements in 30 published descriptions of GB-BCIs by two independent coders. Reliability of coding was assessed. Results The checklist comprises 26 essential reporting elements, covering intervention design, intervention content, participant characteristics, and facilitator characteristics. Inter-rater reliability for identification of reporting elements was high (95 % agreement, Mean AC1 = 0.89). Conclusion The checklist is a practical tool that can be used, alongside other reporting guidelines, to ensure comprehensive description and to assess reporting quality of GB-BCIs. It can also be helpful for designing group-based health interventions. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2300-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

What was intended to be achieved by using groups as opposed to alternative formats?
To what extent were the advantages and disadvantages of using groups How were the other delivery formats used?

(2) General
Where were the sessions delivered?
setting What was the setting like (e.g., any characteristics of the institution)?
Why was it selected?
What was the wider environmental and cultural setting in which the intervention was delivered?

(3) Venue characteristics
What was the venue where the sessions were delivered like?
What was the room setting where the groups met like?
Was the room setting or venue purposefully manipulated for the sessions (e.g., seating arranged to encourage interaction, to facilitate learning)?
Where there any practical issues related to the room setting or venue (e.g., proximity, parking spaces, access issues)?

(4) Total number of group sessions
How many group sessions were delivered in the intervention?
Did all the groups receive the same number of sessions?

(5) Length of group sessions
How long were the sessions? (Range, mean)

(6) Frequency of group sessions
How often were the sessions delivered?
Was the frequency of sessions the same or changing throughout the duration of the intervention?

(7) Duration of the intervention
Over what period of time were the sessions delivered?
12. Follow-up sessions Were any follow-up or maintenance sessions delivered after the core part of the intervention?
If yes, how did they differ from the core sessions? How was the intervention intended to work?
What mechanisms or theories of change was the intervention based on?
How were the mechanisms of change incorporated in the intervention design and/or delivery?

(9) Change techniques
What techniques were used in group sessions to prompt (behaviour / cognitive) change?

(10) Session content
What were the group sessions about?
What was the focus and thematic content of the sessions?
Was different session content planned for each session?
Was the content of the sessions fixed or flexible (i.e., to what extent the content was pre-determined or influenced by the participants and facilitators)?

Sequencing of sessions
Was the content of the sessions delivered in a logical sequence following the process model?
Were the later sessions based on or related to the content of the earlier sessions, i.e., was the session content progressive or repetitive?
How was the sequence of the sessions designed?
Were the participants expected to attend all of the sessions in the 5 intended order?

Participants'
materials What materials (e.g., booklets, newsletters) or tools (e.g., pedometers) did the participants use during and outside the sessions?
How were these materials developed and what they included?
How were these materials and tools used and incorporated in the sessions?

(15) Group composition
Who were the participants in the groups (e.g., in terms of participants' gender, age, ethnicity, religion, health condition etc.)?
Were there any important differences between the groups in participants' characteristics or were participants' characteristics representative of the whole sample?
Did the participants' "significant others" attend the groups?

(16) Methods for group allocation
How were the participants allocated to different groups (e.g., selfselected groups or allocated to groups)?
Were the groups purposefully or opportunistically composed?

(17) Continuity of participants' group membership
Could the participants attend different groups or were they allocated to one group throughout the intervention (i.e., open or closed access to groups)?
Did the participants attend the sessions with the same participants?

professional background
Who were the facilitators in terms of professional background?
What relevant professional qualifications, skills, knowledge and experience did the facilitators have?

materials
How were the facilitators instructed to deliver the sessions?
What materials and tools were the facilitators provided with to deliver the sessions?
To what extent was the session delivery standardized by the use of a manual or script?
What teaching aids did the facilitators use (e.g., presentation slides, flip charts)?
What techniques or approaches did the facilitators use to achieve the 9 intended facilitation style?
What was the intended role of the person delivering the group sessions?
To what extent were components of the intervention tailored towards individual participants?
42. Group processes How did the groups work together?
What group processes were purposefully activated in the groups (e.g., social identification, social comparisons, peer support)?
How were they activated?
What was the interaction between the participants and facilitators like?
What was the interaction between the participants in the group like?