The role of intervention mapping in designing disease prevention interventions: A systematic review of the literature

• Published in: PloS one 2017-03, Vol.12 (3), p.e0174438-e0174438
• Main Authors: Garba, Rayyan M, Gadanya, Muktar A
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acquired immune deficiency syndrome; Adenomatous polyposis coli; AIDS; Analysis; Bacteria; Behavior; Breast cancer; Breast Neoplasms - prevention & control; Cancer; Candidiasis, Oral - prevention & control; Cervical cancer; Colleges & universities; Communities; Confidence intervals; Conveying; Criteria; Data processing; Decision making; Developing countries; Disease prevention; Drug abuse; Education; Environmental conditions; Environmental factors; Evaluation; Female; Focus groups; Format; Health care; Health promotion; Health risks; Hepatitis; Hepatitis - prevention & control; Hepatitis B; HIV; HIV Infections - prevention & control; Human immunodeficiency virus; Humans; Influenza; Influenza, Human - prevention & control; Intervention; LDCs; Learning theory; Literature reviews; Male; Mapping; Matrices (mathematics); Medical personnel; Medical screening; Medicine; Medicine and Health Sciences; Mens health; Methods; Models, Theoretical; Nursing; Objectives; Populations; Prevention; Preventive medicine; Programmers; Protocol; Protocol (computers); Psychology; Public health; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk assessment; Risk groups; Science; Sexuality; Sexually transmitted diseases; Social discrimination learning; Social Sciences; STD; Stroke; Sustainability; Systematic review; Teaching hospitals; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - prevention & control; Womens health; World Wide Web
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174438

To assess the role of Intervention Mapping (IM) in designing disease prevention interventions worldwide. Systematic search and review of the relevant literature-peer-reviewed and grey-was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Only five of the twenty two included studies reviewed were RCTs that compared intervention using IM protocol with placebo intervention, and provided the outcomes in terms of percentage increase in the uptake of disease-prevention programmes, and only one of the five studies provided an effect measure in the form of relative risk (RR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.08-2.34, p = 0.02). Of the five RCTs, three were rated as strong evidences, one as a medium evidence and one as a weak evidence, and they all reported statistically significant difference between the two study groups, with disease prevention interventions that have used the intervention mapping approach generally reported significant increases in the uptake of disease-prevention interventions, ranging from 9% to 28.5% (0.0001 ≤ p ≤ 0.02), On the other hand, all the 22 studies have successfully identified the determinants of the uptake of disease prevention interventions that is essential to the success of disease prevention programmes. Intervention Mapping has been successfully used to plan, implement and evaluate interventions that showed significant increase in uptake of disease prevention programmes. This study has provided a good understanding of the role of intervention mapping in designing disease prevention interventions, and a good foundation upon which subsequent reviews can be guided.