Barriers and Facilitators to Binge-Watching Using the Theoretical Domains Framework
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview: Barriers and Facilitators to binge-watching using the theoretical domains framework.
This study investigates the shift in television viewing habits and the phenomenon of binge-watching series and programmes to identify barriers and facilitators to the behaviour and to propose behavioural change techniques. Twenty nine studies met the inclusion criteria of being published in peer-reviewed journals in English, between 2017 and 2021, participants aged (not limited to) 18 – 24 and concerning binge-watching of television series. The manuscript aimed to understand binge-watching and explore mitigations to the negative effects thereof.
Abstract
The abstract provides a summary of the study and highlights the importance of investigating the motivation for binge-watching related problems. The abstract does not include the details of the criteria and methodologies used to gather information/review. I suggest adding a sentence or two to this regard to improve transparency and reproducibility. Perhaps a sentence or two regarding the limitations of the study too.
References
The authors have used recent references perhaps to support their argument and provide a theoretical basis for their study, and to support their findings.
Strengths of the paper
· Important and timely topic - the relationship between binge-watching and the TDF provides new insights into the underlying psychological factors that contribute to this relationship.
· Well-designed conceptual framework.
· The study makes an important contribution to the field of psychology and behavioural change interventions.
· Excellent qualitative analyses
Weakness of the paper
· The study uses too many abbreviations and it makes it difficult to read.
There are no specific issues and it is my opinion that the study is publishable in its current form, although I would encourage language editing.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI found the text difficult to read as an English second language speaker.
Author Response
Comments 1: The abstract does not include the details of the criteria and methodologies used to gather information/review. I suggest adding a sentence or two to this regard to improve transparency and reproducibility. Perhaps a sentence or two regarding the limitations of the study too
Response 1: We’ve revised the methodology section of the abstract, including a sentence indicating that data were extracted and coded as informed by the TDF. We have also included a sentence regarding the limitation of the study. Thank you for pointing this out.
Comments 2: The study uses too many abbreviations and it makes it difficult to read.
Response 2: Only 4 key abbreviations used throughout the review, including BCW (Behaviour Change Wheel), TDF (Theoretical Domains Framework), BCTs (Behaviour Change Techniques), and the BCTTv1 (Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy Version 1). These are known as abbreviations in the field of behaviour change, thus we have used abbreviations as well in this paper, providing their full spelling when first mentioned.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis rapid review on barriers and facilitators to binge watching is systematically conducted, well-organised, and well-written. The review contributes to the summary of research and evidence related to binge watching, and is able to suggest a few directions in managing binge watching under a behavioural health framework.
I would like the authors to respond to a few questions. First, there are some systematic reviews on binge watching, please explain more on why you choose to conduct a rapid review rather than a systematic review. Second, many or most reviews would not use theoretical frameworks to guide the analysis. While theories are good at helping to explain how things work, it may also put a framework on how we analyse information and lead to potential biased views. Third, section 4.2 on BCTs to reduce binge-watching is an important synthesis for practitioners. The two BCTs suggested tend to reiterate what is known. I just wonder if there are more behavioural management principles or practice implications that could be identified from the analysis of barriers and facilitators.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageQuality of English is fine. Well written and largely free from typo or grammatical errors. Style of technical writing is fine.
Author Response
Comments 1: please explain more on why you choose to conduct a rapid review rather than a systematic review
Response 1: A rapid review was conducted due to the shorter length of time required as opposed to conducting a systematic review. From the time of conducting the research to now, where we are reviewing this paper, there has yet to be research done on the development of interventions to mitigate binge-watching. Subsequently, given the urgency and rapid increase consumption of binge-watching, a rapid review was conducted to suggest potential interventions as soon as possible. This is now noted in the manuscript. (Please see page 2, lines 72-76).
Comments 2: many or most reviews would not use theoretical frameworks to guide the analysis. While theories are good at helping to explain how things work, it may also put a framework on how we analyse information and lead to potential biased views
Response 2: The TDF was used to guide the analysis because it integrates core constructs from 83 behaviour change theories and summarises them in 14 well-rounded domains, which allows researchers to comprehensively study multiple facets that affects human behaviours, including affective and cognitive influences (see page 2, lines 86-89). The TDF has also been used to develop other behavioural interventions including alcohol consumption during pregnancy (see page 2, lines 79-80). These reasons have been included in the revised draft. We also note that inductive themes were identified within the deductive framework (see page 3, lines 143-144 and section 3.3).
Comments 3: I just wonder if there are more behavioural management principles or practice implications that could be identified from the analysis of barriers and facilitators.
Response 3: Suggested applications of BCTs in the development of behavioural interventions have been revised in the updated draft. This revision offers examples how on the BCT can encourage behaviour change. (See pages 10-11, sections 4.2).
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study reviewed the barriers and facilitators to binge watching using the TDF. It is quite interesting to researchers or readers in cyberpsychology, social psychology and behavioural addictions. My comments are as below.
1. The authors could include the I-PACE model about the development of addictive behaviours by Brand et al (2019) in the Introduction part. Though binge watching might not be an addiction, the excessive or problematic use of it needs to be further discussed with this model.
2. Too much key content was put in the Supplementary Files, which is not convenient for readers. It is extremely difficult to open a pile of supplementary documents one by one to search the information we want. Many important tables and figures should be in the main text, such as Figure B1, Supplementary E, and Supplementary G. Please check the other reivew papers and see what should be in the main text.
3. I understand the period of writing and peer reviews. However, this review was conducted three years ago (on 25th of June 2021), which could be a cruicial limitation. This should be justified by the authors in this paper.
4. The results were not presented clearly at all. Everything is in the Supplementary Files. I still don’t know what the “Barriers and Facilitators” are after reading the sections 3.4.1 to 3.4.21.
5. The statements in Discussion chapter should be carefully addressed since this review was conducted three years ago. For example, “No studies to date have systematically examined barriers and facilitators to binge watching to inform design and development of interventions.”
Author Response
Comments 1: The authors could include the I-PACE model about the development of addictive behaviours…
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. The I-PACE model does provide an explanation on the development of binge-watching as an addictive behaviour. This model has been incorporated into the Introduction in page 2, lines 64 - 68.
Comments 2: Many important tables and figures should be in the main text, such as Figure B1, Supplementary E, and Supplementary G.
Response 2: I’d argue against including Supplementary E into the body of the main text. This is because Supplementary E consists of detailed analysis of each of the 29 studies that are included in the present research. A summary and overview regarding key characteristics including the type of study, location, age, and published date is included in the main text under 3.1. Study Characteristics. Figure B1 also contains excessive information to be included in the main text. A brief is included 2.2. Search Strategy.
Comments 3: This review was conducted three years ago (on 25th of June 2021), which could be a cruicial limitation. This should be justified by the authors in this paper.
Response 3: To date, there has only been one self-submitted thesis that explores the link between binge-watching and mindfulness watching, which was unsuccessful in decreasing binge-watching behaviours. This study is now incorporated in the review and have explained the continued importance of the paper (please see page 2, lines 72-76).
Comments 4: The results were not presented clearly at all. Everything is in the Supplementary Files. I still don’t know what the “Barriers and Facilitators” are after reading the sections 3.4.1 to 3.4.21.
Response 4: Identification of whether the themes or sub-themes are barriers or facilitators are indicated in each of the respective sections. This section has also been expanded to Sections 3.4 to 3.9.3 to display the global themes vs. Sub themes. In addition, a table is added to summarise whether the themes are barriers or facilitators (or both). (Please see pages 6-5).
Comments 5: The statements in Discussion chapter should be carefully addressed since this review was conducted three years ago. For example, “No studies to date have systematically examined barriers and facilitators to binge watching to inform design and development of interventions.”
Response 5: In line with the third response, We can confirm that there has yet to be a study that systematically explores binge-watching behaviours with the intention to develop interventions to mitigate this. Therefore, the statement and similar sentiment in the review still stands.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors present an interesting paper on the current and interesting topic of binge-watching. Although the manuscript is generally well structured and the authors' work is easy to read, the following are some comments and suggestions to improve the scientific quality of the paper.
1.- Though the authors indicate that there is previous literature that has applied the TDF, I believe it would be easier for the reader to go a little deeper in explaining this theoretical framework and its domains, or at least provide a reference in which to delve into this aspect. Also, given other conceptual frameworks that could have been used, why did the authors choose this one? What advantages does it bring to the research?
2.- The authors' position on the definition of binge-watching is not clear to me. They mention the multiple perspectives when talking about this behavior, but how is this addressed in the research? Number of episodes watched? Hours in front of the TV? I understand that, for example, watching 5 consecutive episodes of 15 or 20 minutes each is not as "harmful" as watching 5 consecutive episodes of 45-50 minutes each. Was this criterion taken into account in the selection or analysis of the studies? If not, which ones?
3.- What criteria were used to code items as barriers or facilitators to binge-watching?
4.- How were the BTCs selected?
5.- I recommend using a graph to visually summarize the results as a function of themes, barriers and facilitators.
Author Response
Comments 1: given other conceptual frameworks that could have been used, why did the authors choose this one?
Response 1: The TDF was used to guide the analysis because it integrates core constructs from 83 behaviour change theories and summarises them in 14 well-rounded domains, which allows researchers to comprehensively study multiple facets that affects human behaviours, including affective and cognitive influences (see page 2, lines 86-89). The TDF has also been used to develop other behavioural interventions including alcohol consumption during pregnancy, showcasing its applicability to be used to guide intervention development. These reasons have been included in the revised draft (see page 2, lines 78-82). We also note that inductive themes were identified within the deductive framework (see page 4, section 3.3).
Comments 2: The authors' position on the definition of binge-watching is not clear to me.
Response 2: We have now clarified the review’s position on the definition of binge-watching (please see page 1, lines 43-45).
Comments 3:What criteria were used to code items as barriers or facilitators to binge-watching?
Response 3: Barriers and facilitators were coded as such, depending on whether the extracted data encourages or prevents binge-watching. This has now been clarified in page 3, lines 143-144 of the paper.
Comments 4: How were the BCTs selected?
Response 4: Explanation of this is presented under 2.5. Data Analysis as well as 3.2. Deductive Analysis. Selection of BCTs were informed by the Behaviour Change Wheel book.
Comments 5: I recommend using a graph to visually summarize the results as a function of themes, barriers and facilitators.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out, a table is included in the main text to summarise the themes (please see page 6).
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper has been improved, especially the overview of the key themes.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI believe that the authors have made the appropriate modifications that allow the publication of the work. Congratulations.
