How can better monitoring, reporting and evaluation standards advance behavioural public policy?. (1st January 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cotterill, Sarah; John, Peter; Johnston, Marie
• Is Part Of: Policy and politics. Volume 49:Number 1(2021)
• Page Start: 161
• Page End: 179
• Publication Date: 2021-01-01
• Subjects: behavioural public policy -- behaviour change techniques -- public policy -- reporting standards -- interventions -- evaluation -- randomised control trials; Local government -- Great Britain -- Periodicals; Policy sciences -- Periodicals; Political science -- Periodicals; 320.605
• DOI: 10.1332/030557320X15955052119363
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0305-5736

Abstract

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 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.