Table 1

Summary of selected health behaviour theories*

Model

Author

Meta-analyses examining the model

Evidence supporting theory


Biomedical

None identified (NI)

BLT

Skinner, 1953

NI

Communication

NI

HBM

Rosenstock et al. 1966

1. 30

2. 31

1. 46 studies- substantial empirical support.

2. 16 studies; at best 10% of variance accounted for by any one dimension of the theory.

SCT

Bandura 1950's

38

27 studies; self-efficacy explained between 4% and 26% of variance

TRA

Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975

41

Theory explains about 25% of variance in behaviour from intention alone, and explains slightly less than 50% of variance in intentions.

TPB

Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975

1.43

2. 44

3. 45

1. 13 studies; 75% of interventions effected a change in behaviour in desired direction.

2. 56 studies; About a third of the variations in behaviour can be explained by the combined effect of intention and perceived behavioural control in the domain of health.

3. 185 independent empirical tests: combined effect of intention and perceived behavioural control explained about a third of variation in behaviour. Theory can explain 20% of prospective measures of actual behaviour.

PMT

Rogers, 1975

35

65 studies – Moderate effects in predicting behaviour.

Self-regulation

Leventhal et al. 1980

NI

IMB

Fisher and Fisher 1992

NI

TTM

Prochaska & DiClemente 1983

1. 58

2. 59

1. Stage based interventions not more effective at increasing smoking cessation than non-stage based interventions.

2. 91 independent samples. Results support that individuals use all 10 processes of change.


* The studies included in most of these meta-analyses covered a wide range of content areas, most not directly related to adherence behaviour. Readers are encouraged to consult the original source for topic coverage.

Munro et al. BMC Public Health 2007 7:104   doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-104

Open Data