Prisma

We used the following search terms to identify scholarly articles containing frameworks of behaviour change interventions: Topic = (taxonomy or framework or classification) AND Topic = ('behaviour change' or 'behavior change') AND Topic = (prevention OR intervention OR promotion OR treatment OR program OR programme OR policy OR law OR politics OR regulation OR government OR institute OR legislation).
Searches of Web of Science (Science and Social Science databases), Pubmed. and PsycInfo were supplemented by consulting with eight international experts in behaviour change, drawn from the disciplines of psychology, health promotion, epidemiology, public health, and anthropology. Given that there may be frameworks described in books and non peer-reviewed articles, we acknowledged that it was unlikely that we would arrive at a complete set, but we sought to canvass enough to be able to undertake an analysis of how well as a whole they matched the criteria described earlier and to achieve sufficient coverage of the key concepts and labels.
Documents were included if: they described a framework of behaviour change interventions (not specific behaviour change techniques); the framework was specified in enough detail to allow their key features to be discerned; and they were written in English. They were originally selected on the basis of titles and abstracts. A subset was then selected using the inclusion criteria for full review. The nature of the topic meant that this review could not be undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines [21 ].
Once the frameworks were identified, their categories and category definitions were extracted and tabulated. This was done independently by MS and a researcher who was not part of the study team or familiar with this work. The frameworks were coded according to the criteria for usefulness by RW and SM.

In the absence of empirical evidence, the present COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs is based on our experience that we (that is: the COSMIN steering committee) have gained over the past years in conducting systematic reviews of PROMs [11 (link), 12 (link)], in supporting other systematic reviewers in their work [13 (link), 14 (link)], and in the development of COSMIN methodology [15 (link), 16 (link)]. In addition, we have studied the quality of systematic reviews of PROMs in two consecutive reviews [7 (link), 17 (link)], and in reviews that have used the COSMIN methodology we have specifically searched for the comments made by review authors relating to the COSMIN methodology. Further, we have had iterative discussions by the COSMIN steering committee, both at face-to-face meetings (CP, WM, HdV and CT) and by email. We gained experience from results of a recent Delphi study on the content validity of PROMs [18 ], and from results of a previous Delphi study on the selection of outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in core outcome sets (COS) [19 (link)]. Further, the guideline was developed in concordance with existing guidelines for reviews, such as the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions [20 ] and for diagnostic test accuracy reviews [21 ], the PRISMA Statement [22 ], the Institute of Medicine standards for systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research [23 ], and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) principles [24 ].

The original PRISMA-7 questionnaire consists of seven questions related to the risk factors for frailty [14 (link)]. Every “yes” response contributes to a point; an individual with more than three positive responses (3 “yes”) is considered at risk of frailty. A well-validated screening tool for frailty [15 (link)], it has good sensitivity (78.3%) and specificity (74.4%) [14 (link)].

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) protocol [13 (link)] was employed for this review to ensure a systematic and transparent approach to conducting the review and reporting its findings. It guided the reporting of the results in a structured and transparent manner, adhering to the PRISMA flowchart to illustrate the study selection process (Fig. 1). The systematic presentation of the findings included forest plots, summary tables, and comprehensive descriptions of the main outcomes.Fig. 1

PRISMA protocol representation for the review

The PRISMA standard (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses) was developed by Moher et al.
²⁹ (link) as well, and the procedures referred by Hoque et al.
³⁰ and Hanvold et al.
³¹ (link) are the foundations for this investigation. It can direct researchers as they formulate precise answers to study inquiries. Identification, screening, establishing inclusion and exclusion standards, determining eligibility, quality evaluation, data collection, abstraction, and analysis are all included in the systematic search methods used by Ishtiaque et al.
³²  Our systematic review fully adheres to the PRISMA guidelines (Table 1).