How to use the Compendium

The Compendium of Dyadic Behavior Change Techniques v2.0 can be used for the systematic reporting as well as the theory-based development of dyadic interventions. We aim to provide comprehensive guidance on how to effectively use the Compendium v2.0 for your specific needs.

The Compendium v2.0 can...

✔ …offer a shared and structured description of DBCTs by specifying “who performs what from whom” during intervention delivery and subsequent implementation.

✔ …enhance systematic reporting of dyadic intervention content by providing structured reporting guidelines.

✔ …propose theoretical links of DBCTs with the most proximal mechanisms of action that a specific intervention task is assumed to stimulate as well as associated socio-ecological and dyadic theories.

✔ …facilitate the development of theory-based dyadic interventions by proposing potential DBCTs assumed to elicit behavior change via a specific proximal mechanism of action.

The Compendium v2.0 cannot (yet)...

✘ …claim effectiveness of DBCTs.

✘ …ensure complete distinctiveness of intervention tasks, as there may be overlap.

✘ …provide an exhaustive list of DBCTs: The DBCTs included in the Compendium v2.0 are based on the results of a systematic review of the literature (see Di Maio, Villinger et al., 2024) and feedback of international experts in dyadic health behavior change. However, there may be additional DBCTs not yet covered.

✘ …provide an exhaustive list of associated ecological theories.

✘ …claim to be a final product. Instead, it is ongoing work in progress.

How you navigate through the Compendium of DBCTs depends on what you want to use it for. The Compendium has two primary objectives: It can be used for (1) the systematic reporting of dyadic interventions as well as (2) the theory-based development of dyadic interventions.

(1) Reporting of dyadic interventions

When reporting dyadic interventions, it is crucial that researchers precisely describe who performs the intervention task (i.e., one partner or the dyad), what intervention task is performed, and for whom the intervention task is being performed (i.e., for one partner or the dyad).

Then, researchers should identify and describe the most proximal mechanism of action that each of the DBCT targets or influences to change behavior. This helps to clarify the psychological variables that are assumed to link the DBCT to behavior change.

Next, researchers should outline the associated theories, models, or theoretical frameworks to enhance the theoretical understanding and contextualization of the DBCT being used.

Important: Please note that the present Compendium v2.0 does not guarantee distinctiveness of the different intervention tasks. For example, there might be overlap between intervention tasks such as ‘reviews past successes’ and ‘shares past successes’, etc.).

See below examples of how to identify and report DBCTs from published studies on dyadic health behavior change interventions.

Example study 1

The first example study (Scholz & Berli, 2014) describes a dyadic action control trial in couples with overweight and obesity aiming to increase physical activity.

Theory of behavior change: Communal coping theories (e.g., Lyons et al., 1998, Lewis et al., 2006) and the transactive goals dynamics theory (Fitzsimons et al., 2015) propose different mechanisms through which shared goal representation facilitates health behavior change. Additionally, the DBCTs 37a, 38a, 39a are suggested to directly enhance dyadic action control, prompt social support and social control mechanisms, and thereby improve health behavior change (Berli et al., 2016; Scholz & Berli, 2014).

Example study 2

The second example study (Keller et al., 2020) describes a dyadic planning intervention in healthy adults aiming to increase physical activity.

Theory of behavior change: Burkert et al. (2011) proposed that when a dyad plans for one partner, this should trigger the same mechanisms like individual action planning that facilitate behavior change (i.e., planning) as described in the HAPA (Schwarzer et al., 2008). Additionally, when the dyad plans for one partner additional social exchange processes that promote health behavior change, such as behavior-specific social support and social control, should be activated (Burkert et al., 2011).

(2) Development of dyadic interventions

In the Compendium v2.0, DBCTs are nested within hypothesized mechanisms of action to change behavior, which are assumed to be stimulated by the DBCTs. These theoretical mechanisms of action, in turn, are grouped within domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework (Atkins et al., 2017; Cane et al., 2012). Additionally, theories and frameworks that encompass social levels are associated with the theoretical mechanisms of action and intervention tasks.

The Compendium is intended to complement and build upon existing approaches to intervention development (e.g., Craig et al., 2008; Fernandez et al., 2019). It can be used as complementary guidance on how to design the program or compose the behavior change techniques to be used. Researchers can either select a theoretical mechanism of action, choose a domain encompassing several theoretical mechanisms of action, or opt for a theory that incorporates a social level, and will be presented with corresponding DBCTs. Once the DBCTs have been selected, researchers next need to make decisions about what features of DBCTs to use (e.g., who performs the intervention task? At whom is the intervention task targeted at?).

Important: Please note that the DBCTs listed in the Compendium v2.0 were derived from empirical and theoretical literature and have hypothesized links to mechanisms of behavior change, agreed upon by experts. Please note that listing of a technique does not imply its effectiveness.

Example:

Using the intervention mapping approach (Fernandez et al., 2019), a research team might aim develop a dyadic intervention for couples in which one partner has been diagnosed with Type II diabetes. The research team could plan to design the dyadic intervention program based on Transactive Goal Dynamic theory (TGD theory; Fitzsimons et al., 2015).

The researchers might begin by examining the theoretical determinants and associated intervention tasks that are listed under the domain “goals”, or those directly linked with the TGD theory (Fitzsimons et al., 2015).

In the next step, the researchers should determine who will perform the intervention tasks and whom the intervention tasks are targeted at. These decisions could be guided by the assumptions of the TGD theory (Fitzsimons et al., 2015), as well as by considerations of couple characteristics, cultural context, feasibility, and other relevant factors (Kok et al., 2016).