Comparer des méthodes

	Roue du Changement de Comportement (BCW)	Taxonomie des résultats de mise en œuvre
Domaine	Science de l'implémentation	Science de l'implémentation
Famille	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Année d'origine	2011	2011
Auteur d'origine	Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., West, R.	Proctor, E. K., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., et al.
Type	Framework	Taxonomy
Source fondatrice	Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6, 42.	Proctor, E. K., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G. A., Bunger, A., ... & Rojas, D. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65-76.
Alias	BCW, behaviour change wheel, COM-B model	implementation outcomes, Proctor framework, implementation success measures
Apparentées	5	5
Résumé	The Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) is a systematic, evidence-based framework for designing behavior change interventions. Developed by Michie et al. (2011) and built on the COM-B model (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation→Behavior), the BCW guides practitioners through a structured process: diagnose behavior change barriers (using the Theoretical Domains Framework), identify relevant intervention functions (education, persuasion, incentivization, coercion, training, restriction, environmental restructuring, modelling, enablement), and design specific behavior change techniques matched to policy categories. It has become the international standard for systematically designing behavior change interventions in healthcare, public health, and other domains.	The Implementation Outcome Taxonomy is a framework defining eight measurable dimensions for assessing implementation success: Acceptability, Adoption, Appropriateness, Feasibility, Fidelity, Implementation Cost, Penetration, and Sustainability. Developed by Proctor et al. (2011), it provides a standardized vocabulary and measurement approach to distinguish implementation process outcomes (how well was the intervention delivered?) from clinical outcomes (did patients get better?). This taxonomy is foundational to implementation science because it acknowledges that an evidence-based intervention can be effective (clinical outcome) but poorly implemented (implementation outcome), or feasible to deliver but not adopted by organizations.