How can better monitoring, reporting and evaluation standards advance behavioural public policy?

Sarah Cotterill*, Peter John, Marie Johnston

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)


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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)161-179
Number of pages19
JournalPolicy and Politics
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 27 Aug 2020


  • behaviour change techniques
  • behavioural public policy
  • evaluation
  • interventions
  • public policy
  • randomised control trials
  • reporting standards


Dive into the research topics of 'How can better monitoring, reporting and evaluation standards advance behavioural public policy?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this