{"title":"更好的监测、报告和评估标准如何促进行为公共政策?","authors":"S. Cotterill, P. John, M. Johnston","doi":"10.1332/030557320x15955052119363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Behavioural public policy interventions have been implemented across the world, targeting citizens, professionals, politicians and policymakers. This article examines poor quality reporting of interventions and methods in some behavioural public policy research. We undertake a review\n of existing reporting standards to assess their suitability for the behavioural public policy context. Our findings reveal that the adoption of standards can improve the reliability and reproducibility of research; provide a more robust evidence base from which to generalise findings; and\n convince sceptics of the value of behavioural public policy research. We conclude that use of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy (BCTTv1) would add rigour to intervention reporting. We argue there is a need\n for a combined tool to guide the design and reporting of randomised controlled trials, incorporating elements from the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist and other sources.","PeriodicalId":47631,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Politics","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How can better monitoring, reporting and evaluation standards advance behavioural public policy?\",\"authors\":\"S. Cotterill, P. John, M. Johnston\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/030557320x15955052119363\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Behavioural public policy interventions have been implemented across the world, targeting citizens, professionals, politicians and policymakers. This article examines poor quality reporting of interventions and methods in some behavioural public policy research. We undertake a review\\n of existing reporting standards to assess their suitability for the behavioural public policy context. Our findings reveal that the adoption of standards can improve the reliability and reproducibility of research; provide a more robust evidence base from which to generalise findings; and\\n convince sceptics of the value of behavioural public policy research. We conclude that use of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy (BCTTv1) would add rigour to intervention reporting. We argue there is a need\\n for a combined tool to guide the design and reporting of randomised controlled trials, incorporating elements from the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist and other sources.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47631,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy and Politics\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy and Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320x15955052119363\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320x15955052119363","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
How can better monitoring, reporting and evaluation standards advance behavioural public policy?
Behavioural public policy interventions have been implemented across the world, targeting citizens, professionals, politicians and policymakers. This article examines poor quality reporting of interventions and methods in some behavioural public policy research. We undertake a review
of existing reporting standards to assess their suitability for the behavioural public policy context. Our findings reveal that the adoption of standards can improve the reliability and reproducibility of research; provide a more robust evidence base from which to generalise findings; and
convince sceptics of the value of behavioural public policy research. We conclude that use of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy (BCTTv1) would add rigour to intervention reporting. We argue there is a need
for a combined tool to guide the design and reporting of randomised controlled trials, incorporating elements from the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist and other sources.