In A Behavior Change Program, What Might Create A Trap That Is Related To Social Influences?

• Contend
• Open up Admission
• Published: 25 April 2019

Contend: Practise interventions based on behavioral theory work in the real earth?

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity volume 16, Article number:36 (2019) Cite this article

• 23k Accesses

• 53 Citations

• 62 Altmetric

• Metrics details

Abstract

Background

Behavioral scientists advise that for behavior change interventions to work effectively, and deliver population-level health outcomes, they must exist underpinned by behavioral theory. However, despite implementation of such interventions, population levels of both health outcomes and linked behaviors have remained relatively static. Nosotros debate the extent to which interventions based on behavioral theory work in the existent world to address population health outcomes.

Discussion

Hagger argues there is substantive evidence supporting the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions based on behavioral theory in promoting population-level health beliefs change in the 'existent world'. However, large-scale effectiveness trials inside existing networks are relatively scarce, and more are needed leveraging insights from implementation science. Importantly, sustained investment in effective behavioral interventions is needed, and behavioral scientists should engage in greater advancement to persuade gatekeepers to invest in behavioral interventions.

Weed argues there is no prove to demonstrate behavioral theory interventions are genuinely constructive in existent world settings in populations that are offered them: they are merely efficacious for those that receive them. Despite behavioral volatility that is a normal part of maintaining steady-land population behavior levels creating the illusion of effectiveness, interventions neglect in shifting the curve of population behaviors because they focus on individuals rather than populations.

Hagger responds that behavioral interventions piece of work in the 'real world' in spite of, not because of, flux in health behaviors, and that the contention that behavioral theory focuses solely on private behavior change is inaccurate.

Weed responds that the focus on extending the controls of efficacy trials into implementation is impractical, uneconomic and futile, and this has squandered opportunities to conduct genuine effectiveness trials in naturalistic settings.

Summary

Hagger contends that interventions based on behavioral theory are effective in irresolute population-level behavior in 'real world' contexts, merely more evidence on how best to implement them and how to appoint policymakers and practitioners to provide sustained funding is needed. Weed argues for a prototype shift, away from aggregative attempts to effect individual behavior change towards a focus on disrupting social practices, underpinned past understanding social and economic causation of the distribution and acceptance of behaviors in a population.

Introduction

Given testify for the prevalence and the human and economic burden of not-infectious disease, behaviors that may contribute to the incidences of such diseases are of increasing bookish, political and societal concern. Nosotros debate the extent to which interventions based on behavioral theory work in the real world to contribute to addressing these concerns. This arises from a live fence at the Annual Coming together of the International Society of Behavioral Diet and Physical Activity held in Hong Kong in June 2018. The debate reported in this commodity was conducted using the same format as the 'alive' debate, our cases were each written independently then exchanged simultaneously, and the aforementioned process repeated for the responses. Once this process was completed, we authored the joint determination comprising points of agreement, and areas where we disagree.

In favor: Martin Due south. Hagger - interventions based on behavioral theory do work in the existent globe

Groundwork

Given epidemiological research associating multiple chronic illness risk with participation in wellness-related behaviors [1,2,iii,four,five], wellness organizations and stakeholders have sought to develop behavioral interventions that lead to practically-meaning changes in these behaviors and concomitant reduction in disease risk. Behavioral scientists propose that interventions based on theories from the behavioral sciences, particularly psychology, volition be optimally constructive in evoking behavior change [6,seven,viii,9,ten,11,12,13]. Despite an expanding testify base demonstrating the efficacy of theory-based interventions in promoting sustained change in wellness-related behavior, my colleague will suggest that the office of behavioral theory is overstated, particularly when information technology comes to 'real world' effectiveness. In item, he will argue that what works in 'ideal world' carefully-controlled conditions are not effective in 'real globe' contexts where upscaling, logistic, cultural, and implementation factors pervade. He volition cite the lack of modify in concrete activity participation and rates of chronic illness and obesity as prove that interventions based on behavioral theory are not effective. Hither I deconstruct these 'straw person' arguments, and contend that interventions based on theory can and do work in promoting behavior change in real world contexts.

Exercise interventions based on theory 'work' in changing beliefs?

Behavioral theory is a broad term for a prepare of pre-specified ideas or predictions aimed at explaining behavior [seven, 14, 15]. Behavioral theories come up from multiple disciplines (e.g., psychology, sociology, behavioral economics), and identify multiple determinants or mechanisms of beliefs including beliefs, motivation and intentions [16], individual differences [17], social influence [18], and surround and demographics [19,20,21]. A noun torso of research has identified the effectiveness of theory-based interventions targeting change in modifiable determinants or mechanisms [22,23,24]. For example, syntheses of evidence have indicated that interventions targeting change in social cerebral beliefs and motivation [25,26,27,28,29,30,31], social support and norms [32, 33], and planning [29] to be effective in promoting behavior modify in randomized controlled trials. Similarly, interventions based on health-hazard communications take been successful in promoting behavior change [34], with graphic images on tobacco products a prominent example [35,36,37,38]. Research targeting change in determinants derived from social-ecological theories, encompassing environmental, customs, and policy factors, accept also been shown to be effective [21, 32, 39, twoscore]. Interventions based on selection compages, sometimes referred to as 'nudging', have demonstrated effectiveness in irresolute behavior in laboratory and field settings [41,42,43,44,45,46]. In addition, interventions adopting specific strategies such as cocky-monitoring [47, 48], prompting social support [48], planning [49], behavioral skills [31], and affective appeals [50] have been found to exist especially effective. Taken together, primary studies and research syntheses betoken that theory-based interventions are effective in changing behavior in laboratory and 'real world' contexts [51].

In the interests of residue, information technology would exist remiss not to acknowledge a number of caveats to this testify. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews take also indicated that stated theoretical footing leads to no divergence in intervention effectiveness [52], and, in some cases, fifty-fifty opposite effects [53]. Similarly, at that place is research demonstrating that adoption of particular beliefs change strategies does not lead to greater intervention effectiveness [52, 54, 55]. So how can these 2 streams of evidence be reconciled? Inadequate mapping of theory on to intervention components may be a moderating cistron. A distinction has been made between theory-inspired and theory-based interventions [56, 57]. Prestwich et al. [52] indicated that 'theory-inspired' interventions provide insufficient specification of links betwixt theory and intervention strategies. Theory-inspired interventions, therefore, pay 'lip service' to behavioral theory, just fail to link intervention components with relevant theoretical determinants. There are also bug with inadequate reporting of such links, which hinders researchers' ability to evaluate the result of theoretical basis on intervention effectiveness. There is therefore a need for researchers to become more effective in matching theoretical determinants of behavior with intervention content, and for greater transparency when reporting intervention content [56, 58].

Why accept behavioral interventions not contradistinct the class of non-catching affliction pandemics?

If interventions based on behavioral theory work in changing behavior in 'real world' contexts, how have they not stemmed the tide of non-catching disease pandemics, as my colleague volition contend? Knowledge and implementation of constructive interventions, whether or not they are based on theory, seems to accept had limited impact in changing population-level participation in wellness behaviors and reducing incidence of chronic disease [thirteen]. Although at that place is noun evidence that behavioral interventions are effective in irresolute behavior beyond multiple contexts, populations, and behaviors, and, arguably, those based on theory having greater effectiveness despite some of the same limitations, such knowledge is seldom translated to population-level change. This is largely because many behavioral interventions implemented at the community or even population level are relatively short lived, under-funded, or fail due to poor implementation, up-scaling, or translation [59]. Funding is a key consequence; many behavioral interventions receive initial investment that is not sustained [threescore]. Interventions need sufficient funding for the necessary networks and providers required to implement the intervention in practise. Fifty-fifty though economic evaluation of many behavior change interventions has demonstrated their cost effectiveness [61], investment in behavioral interventions pales compared to investment in procedures aimed at treating illness [60]. It is unrealistic to wait health care providers to identify, assimilate, and implement research findings reported in scientific outlets. The onus is on those producing the evidence to actively engage governments, stakeholders and policymakers, and outline the human being and economic advantages of preventive strategies like behavioral interventions over a handling-focused model of healthcare provision [62].

Related to this, behavioral scientists need to improve demonstrate how theory-based behavioral interventions that work in lab and field experiments, and have been shown to exist effective in larger randomized controlled trials and in real globe contexts, can exist implemented in practice [9, 15, 63, 64]. Such evidence should be the focus of show presentations to government and policymakers advocating investment in, and implementation of, behavioral interventions [65]. The expanding bailiwick of implementation science focuses on translation of inquiry findings into bear witness-based practice, and is receiving increased attention in the fields of behavioral science, public health, health promotion, and wellness policy [65,66,67]. In the context of behavioral interventions, implementation science examines the pathways and strategies necessary for the uptake and implementation of interventions by policymakers and providers. Evidence on how behavioral interventions can be developed by primal workers inside existing networks, who volition ultimately exist responsible for implementing the intervention (e.thou., health ministers, healthcare providers, schoolhouse administrators and teachers, workplace wellness managers, community leaders, urban planners), and how users of the intervention (i.e., those whose behavior needs to alter) can be involved in the implementation, is important to ensure that interventions are practically relevant and sensitive to the contextual and cultural characteristics of target populations [64, 68]. In addition, research on how theory-based behavioral interventions tin be upscaled so their reach within target populations is maximized and the changes in health behavior and health outcomes promised by formative research realized [69]. Research is needed to identify the conditions necessary to up-calibration behavioral interventions in real world contexts, including identifying the partnerships needed to fund, implement, monitor, and maintain interventions; engaging stakeholders to assess the feasibility and acceptability of implementing the intervention in the target community or setting [70]; assisting governmental agencies in developing multi-level and multi-sectorial plans to implement interventions; and developing ways to embed interventions in existing networks throughout development from inception to implementation [69].

Conclusion

In conclusion, interventions based on behavioral theory accept been shown to be effective in changing health behavior. Still, at that place is still demand for more research on interventions that systematically and precisely map intervention content with theoretical determinants, and the need for greater transparency in the reporting of intervention content and protocols. Arguments that such behavioral interventions do not work in the real earth based on observations that pandemics of non-catching disease go along to ascension, and large calibration interventions have not shifted population-level participation in health behavior, every bit my colleague contends, are specious and miss the point. The issue is non that interventions based on beliefs theory do non work in changing beliefs in 'existent world' contexts, they do, rather, it is a lack of investment in, and inadequate upscaling and implementation of, these interventions that has failed to translate their efficacy into sustained, long-term alter at the population level.

AGAINST: Mike Weed - interventions based on behavioral theory practise not work in the real world

Over l years positive population behaviors or health outcomes for nutrition and physical activity have fallen or flatlined globally, and in individual countries. Data shows: rise global obesity since 1975 [71], and in individual countries including England [72], Chile [73], and Australia [71]; falling or flatlining fruit and vegetable consumption in USA since 1994 [74], and in Nihon [75] and Brazil [76] since 1965; and rise concrete inactivity globally since 2001 [77], in Spain since 1995 [78], in Usa since 1997 [79], and in Prc since 1989 [80]. For wellness outcomes, European Surroundings Agency data show loss of healthy life years owing to non-catching diseases has grown past more than twenty% since 1990 [81]. These data illustrate global trends, and their replication in private countries.

Something isn't working! Noting disjoint between a torso of behavioral theory literature that appears to show promise at the private level, and global and national data that shows no change in population behaviors and health outcomes for half a century, Hallal et al. [82] argue "after more than 60 years of scientific research… more of the same (in terms of research and practice) will not exist enough" (p. 190). It appears behavioral theory has a case to answer, and some central questions to face. Simply is the trouble scale-upwardly of behavioral theory in population level interventions and policies, is it intervention designs that act as the vehicle for behavioral theory, or is it simply that behavioral theory itself does not work in the existent world?

Behavioral theory interventions are efficacious not constructive

For decades fields such every bit exercise physiology, public wellness, epidemiology and the behavioral sciences have undertaken research showing that if behavioral theory is deployed "under scientifically controlled circumstances, beliefs alter is achievable for increasing physical activity" [69] (p. 1337). Withal, many "and then-called constructive physical activity interventions" (p. 1337) are small-scale, controlled efficacy trials that do not demonstrate effectiveness or ecological validity, and leave gaps in the chain of show betwixt participants, theory, beliefs and health outcomes [83]. An intervention is efficacious if it works in cohorts who receive it, whereas it is effective if it works in cohorts who have been offered it [84]. This is confused in the literature, and interventions based on behavioral theory merits effectiveness when bachelor evidence demonstrates only their efficacy [69].

Many trials of interventions based on behavioral theory do not venture beyond controlled environments of phase I-III trials, which seek to establish, respectively, concept, efficacy and comparative efficacy. Thus, at all-time, show demonstrates that bear on on those who receive the intervention exceeds impact on those who receive culling interventions. But all the same, this shows only that an intervention is insufficiently efficacious for those who receive it, not that information technology is effective, or comparatively constructive, in cohorts that are offered it [84].

The problem is this: the features of design and implementation associated with good phase I-III trials to establish concept, efficacy, and comparative efficacy, have of import limitations for informing practice and policy decisions [85], which require more generalizable data relating to outcomes of societal issue, such every bit a sustained impact on wellness outcomes at population level. Such impact, or the potential for it, must relate to real globe effectiveness "equally evaluated in an observational, non-interventional trial in a naturalistic setting" [86]. To institute effectiveness, stage IV trials require a more diverse set of methods than those required to institute concept, efficacy and comparative efficacy in phase I-3 trials, and must involve a variety of settings, participants and deliverers [87]. However, in reviewing studies purporting to examine effectiveness of physical action interventions in the real world (i.e., phase IV trials), Beedie, Mann and Jimenez [88] found that many all the same tried to adopt laboratory way methods and controls that would be impractical or uneconomic in real-world settings [89].

Some authors [69, 84, xc] have advocated the RE-AIM framework equally a Stage Four tool to develop the effectiveness of interventions shown to be efficacious at phases I-Iii. Just, with its focus on ensuring accomplish, adoption, implementation integrity, and maintenance of the features of the intervention over time, RE-AIM merely attempts to deliver effectiveness by maintaining the controlled surround of phase I-3 trials in the real world, which likewise as being impractical or uneconomic [89], is too probable to be futile.

Establishing effectiveness in phase 4 trials is difficult, and requires longer timescales, and greater calibration and resources than establishing concept, efficacy and comparative efficacy in phase I-III trials. As such, information technology is non surprising that, in an area where research funding is relatively sparse, and doctoral studies (which are time and resource limited) are often the bricks contributing to edifices of knowledge, genuine phase Iv effectiveness trials are rare [89]. Nevertheless, there is a moral obligation to conduct them [87], otherwise advocacy for behavioral theory interventions based only on efficacy evidence risks wasting participants fourth dimension (and hopes for their wellness) and taxpayers money on unproven interventions in unproven populations.

Behavioral theory interventions are recipients not stimuli of beliefs change

Analyses of national participation data propose interventions based on behavioral theory may be recipients of individual behavior change, rather than the stimulus for it. This is because populations' behaviors are qualitatively different to individual behaviors, and incorporate individual behavioral volatility inside their steady land. For example, in England two national surveys, Active People (n = 150,000+) and Taking Part (n = xv,000+) [91, 92], testify population participation in sport and related physical activity has flatlined for 10 years, with no sustained change across +/− 2%. Furthermore, data synthesis across half-dozen surveys shows falling or flatlining participation for 25 years [83]. Nevertheless, both cross-sectional retrospective report data and panel time-series data from the surveys also shows considerable individual behavioral volatility, with circa 20% of the population dropping out or doing less sport, 20% taking upward or doing more sport, 20% maintaining participation, and twoscore% consistently doing no sport [83]. Consequently, within whatever 1 year circa 40% of the population change their sport participation behavior, only amass population level participation is unchanged. Thus, steady country population behaviors incorporate considerable individual behavioral modify. This suggests behavioral theory interventions are reflecting and facilitating individual beliefs changes that take identify as part of the steady state behaviors of populations, with participants oftentimes presenting as already motivated to change [88, 93]. Sport England'due south Become Active: Get Salubrious [94] commencement-year pilots, for example, claimed to be the stimulus for more thirty,000 people becoming active, simply the evaluation showed the majority of participants were "ready to modify" when they joined. This suggests the interventions were the recipients rather than the stimulus for private behavioral changes, which are to exist expected as a normal function of steady state population behaviors.

Behavioral theory interventions are non linked to the causes of behavior

A health outcome stubbornly maintained in steady country population behaviors is widespread wellness inequality. It is known that poor wellness outcomes, particularly non-communicable diseases, correlate with social impecuniousness, depression employment, poverty, poor housing, and other indices of multiple deprivation [95]. Behavioral theory provides neither the caption nor, through interventions targeting individuals, the solution to such issues, which must focus on wider causal systems that underpin the social do and economy of behaviors such every bit low concrete activity and poor nutrition.

Undoubtedly, it is the focus on the private rather than the population that undermines the real-globe effectiveness of behavioral theory. The etiological model on which it is based – that poor wellness outcomes are caused by exposure to a substance, for case, saccharide, and that health outcomes can be improved by modifying or moderating individual behaviors to remove or reduce exposure [96] – is fundamentally flawed. This is because solutions – interventions based on behavioral theory – have no relationship to causes – the factors that lead to behaviors in the first place. Furthermore, behavioral theory is assumed to be universal: that is, it is assumed the same behavioral theory tin can address any behavior, be that smoking, alcohol consumption, poor diet, or low physical activity – the transtheoretical model, which was developed for smoking abeyance, is a case in point [97,98,99,100]. Cleary these behaviors are underpinned by different antecedents, so why would nosotros assume they can all be addressed past the same theory? Furthermore, categories of beliefs are non homogenous – the existence of health inequalities is, in itself, show that the factors that lead to behaviors in relation to, for case, nutrition, differ across the population, so poor diet is an agglomeration of behaviors rather than a single behavior. Why would we expect that these multiple circuitous behaviors could all be addressed by the same theory?

Conclusion

I accept argued that while interventions based on behavioral theory have been shown to be efficacious in the controlled environments of phase I-III trials, in that location is no evidence from 18-carat stage IV effectiveness trials to demonstrate they piece of work in the real world. Nonetheless, crucially, I argue that evidence from controlled trials of behavior change interventions only capture individual behavioral volatility that is a normal office of steady land population behaviors. Furthermore, such interventions fail in shifting population behaviors because they focus on individuals rather than on the multiple circuitous factors that drive the distribution of behaviors in the population. As such, behavioral theory within such interventions is non an active ingredient, rather information technology is a dormant recipient of behavior change. Put simply, behavioral theory has no active influence on changing behaviors in the real world.

RESPONSE: Martin Southward. Hagger

I am grateful to my colleague for raising of import points on the implementation of theory-based behavioral interventions and the need for more than show for the effectiveness of behavioral interventions in 'stage IV' trials. These are good points that accept been made many times elsewhere [64], including my opening statement. However, equally an statement confronting the proposal, his statement is not fit-for-purpose. As I predicted, my colleague claims that interventions based on behavioral theory exercise not work in changing behavior in 'real world' contexts considering there has been no yr-on-yr change in rates of non-communicable diseases and health-related behavior participation at the population level. He also suggests that behavior theory focuses solely on private behavior, targets merely the motivated, and fails to incorporate structural determinants of behavior. Hither I illustrate how his arguments reflect a poor understanding of behavioral theory, and are non based on appropriate prove, or, in some instances, whatever evidence at all.

My colleague's argument that interventions based on behavioral theory practise not work is flawed. He equates "behavioral interventions" with "theoretical footing", and therefore claims theory-based interventions do not work because behavioral interventions have non been shown to piece of work. As I argued in my opening statement, information technology is important to make a clear distinction between interventions based on behavioral theory, those merely 'inspired' past behavioral theory, and those that practice non encompass theory at all [8, 56]. My colleague fails to brand this distinction, and ignores evidence demonstrating the efficacy, and effectiveness, of interventions demonstrably based on behavioral theory in real world contexts [36, 41, 43, 101,102,103].

A further problem with his statement is to cite evidence of population-level non-change in rates of non-communicable affliction and health-related behavior equally evidence that behavioral theory does not work in the real earth. It'due south a poor argument without foundation. This is typified in his argument that the 25-year "falling or flatlining" of concrete activeness participation is somehow illustrative of a failure of behavioral interventions. This inference, which is speculative, is based on survey information on sport in which no intervention is identified. To brand matters worse, this argument besides infers that population-level changes in sport participation should reflect a desirable health-related outcome, a position he himself has argued against [83].

He besides argues that considerable flux occurs in individuals' behavior over time while a "steady state" is by and large observed, suggesting that behavioral interventions capture this "volatility" rather than actual change. Withal, no evidence on theory-based behavioral interventions is offered to illustrate this point – the "Get Agile: Get Healthy" campaign he cites, a sport-oriented intervention without footing in behavioral theory, provides no relevant data to verify this claim. Researchers designing trials of behavioral interventions are all besides enlightened of the issue of time-dependent variability in wellness behaviors, and include appropriate covariates in their analyses to demonstrate intervention effectiveness is in spite of, not because of, population-level variation in behavior. However, better evidence than that cited by my colleague supports his contention that population level alter in wellness behaviors has not been achieved [104]. Behavioral scientists' should shoulder some of the blame for this failure by not advocating better implementation of effective interventions, but and then as well should all involved in the 'chain of development' of behavioral intervention from bones research to implementation.

My colleague besides argues that: "Behavioral theory can provide neither the explanation…on the wider causal systems that underpin… behaviors such every bit low physical activity and poor nutrition". This statement is wrong, my colleague probably equates all behavioral theories every bit theories of individual behavior, which reflects a deficient noesis of behavioral theory. Many behavioral theories comprise socio-demographic, structural, and group-level variables as determinants of behavior, and propose how they interact with psychological determinants [21, 32, 39, forty]. Similarly, my colleague argues that: "Undoubtedly, it is the focus on the individual rather than the population that undermines the existent-world effectiveness of behavioral theory." I agree that a simple causal narrative, such as a sole focus on individual behavior change [96], will not be constructive in reversing population-level incidence of not-communicable disease. However, this is non a failure of behavioral theory per se; many theories comprehend individual, structural, and ecological determinants of beliefs [105]. Rather, it points to a need to incorporate interventions based on behavioral theory into policy and practice through advances in implementation science [65,66,67].

Finally, my colleague suggests that theory-based behavioral interventions target only the motivated. This is non a new statement, intervention designers have been aware of this problem for years, and information technology is a trouble that pervades mostinterventions, regardless of their theoretical basis. However, this is not the example for all interventions, and some of the most effective interventions piece of work in irresolute behavior independent of motivation and in 'real globe' contexts without the strict controls associated with laboratory research [36, 51, 102].

In determination, I commend my colleague for identifying the need for more than effectiveness trials and translation efforts for theory-based behavioral interventions. Withal, his arguments against the effectiveness of behavioral theory in 'existent world' contexts reflect an acute lack of understanding of behavioral theory, are based on incorrect inferences regarding behavioral theory, fall dorsum on emotive linguistic communication in an effort to persuade, make no practical suggestions on the manner frontwards for behavior change, and, as a consequence, should exist summarily dismissed.

RESPONSE: Mike Weed

The arguments for behavioral theory barely warrant rebuttal. The volume of prove presented for effectiveness [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51] demonstrates that those who receive behavioral theory interventions show changes in behavior compared to those who exercise non. This is evidence of efficacy, not effectiveness, a distinction non well understood in the literature. The entreatment to implementation scientific discipline is an endeavor to extend controlled efficacy trial environments into implementation, focusing, for example, on maximising intervention fidelity [66] to attain an illusion of effectiveness that is impractical, uneconomic and largely futile for achieving beliefs change at scale. Finally, the litany of under-funded and unsustained interventions, which are presented every bit a result of poor communication past behavioral theorists and poor understanding by policy makers, suggests behavioral theorists are collaborating in their own victim narrative. Investment in implementing interventions has not been sustained because interventions accept non been shown to be effective. But worst, because "implementation science" has sought to extend the controls of phase Two and Iii efficacy and comparative efficacy trials into implementation, opportunities take been squandered to upgrade prove past conducting genuine stage IV observational, non-interventional effectiveness trials in naturalistic settings.

If non behavioral theory, then what?

Behaviors modify regularly and ofttimes. In England, circa xviii million adults change their sport participation each yr [91, 92], withal population sport participation levels have remained stable for quarter of a century [83]. Shifting the curve of population behaviors requires an entirely different approach than irresolute individual behavior. Successes in the former include the utilise of seatbelts, and reductions in drink-driving and in smoking in public spaces, but they effect from legislative mandating, not effective behavioral theory interventions.

Since the 1960s in England, tobacco advertisement, and and so tobacco sponsorship, was regulated, restricted and then banned, followed by increasing restrictions and then a ban on smoking in public spaces, with a ban in cars and rented social housing now also being considered. Latterly, warnings so graphic images of increasing severity and size take been required on tobacco products, which at present cover the whole packaging. Legislation has regulated letters and mandated behaviors, including mandated engagement with efficacious fright appeal interventions to ensure intervention fidelity and deliver effectiveness that would non otherwise be possible. Now, fifty years on, society no longer supports the social do of smoking, and not only is the tobacco industry not permitted to reinforce smoking as a desirable beliefs, it is required to undermine it. The role of behavioral theory in this procedure has been minimal; success is attributable to understanding the meanings attached to smoking as a social practice [106], the ways in which it is reinforced [107], and to addressing social and economical causation [96] through incremental legislative mandating [108] that disrupts the social practice of smoking.

Is it time for a scientific revolution?

The academic practice of the development of behavioral theory shows the signs of paradigmatic scientific discipline [109]. Theorists become self-reinforcing and cocky-referential devotees, advocates for theory rather than outcomes. Empirical deficiencies are attributed to imprecise specification or poor implementation, prompting calls for more meticulous utilize and more than controlled implementation, or for tweaks at the margins of theory. Social ecological approaches, which co-opt social perspectives to back up existing individualistic behavioral solutions, rather than to interrogate and understand social and economic causation, are an example of the latter. Kuhn [109] suggests these circumstances create the structure for scientific revolutions, in which empirical deficiencies tin no longer be explained abroad at the margins or blamed on methods, and the old image is displaced in favour of a new arroyo. I propose that new arroyo should be a social practice framework [96, 107, 109] that deploys legislative mandating as a tool to disrupt social practices, underpinned past understanding of social and economic causation. This should displace the current ascendant individualistic behavioral paradigm that provides solutions that are not connected to causes. It'due south time to burn down downwards the house: the time for revolution is now!

Articulation determination

Although the current debate has showcased our unlike perspectives, it has also highlighted points of understanding. We both agree that interventions based on behavioral theory are efficacious in changing wellness-related behaviors. We also hold that at that place are problems with current prove for the effectiveness of behavioral interventions, merely we disagree on the nature and extent of these problems and their implications for drawing conclusions about the 'real world' effectiveness of behavioral theory. Across this, we also disagree on the implications of the prove base as it stands for advancing effective, long-term solutions to the increasing prevalence of non-communicable diseases.

Hagger

While evidence for existent world effectiveness of interventions based on behavioral theory applied in real world contexts is express, it is not absent. Good examples of theory-based interventions that have demonstrable real-world effectiveness in changing behavior exist (e.one thousand., graphic warnings on tobacco products). Behavioral interventions offering a range of strategies that, if appropriately implemented, tin can and will make lasting changes in behavior at the population level. However, I recognize the need to develop the evidence base of effective large-scale behavioral interventions that tin be embedded within existing networks, and are sensitive to the social and cultural norms of the target population. The interventions need to be sustainable through, for example, their incorporation into routine care or standard do. Those developing interventions need to actively appoint and foyer policymakers and governments to invest in interventions with demonstrated effectiveness and include them as core components of existing services. Behavioral interventions should be an integral part of a co-ordinated set of strategies that also includes policy change and legislation targeting change in specific behaviors at the population-level.

Weed

Fundamental alter is required: a image shift to focus on social exercise rather than individual behavior. Evidence that behavioral theory interventions are genuinely effective among those offered them, rather than merely efficacious amid those receiving them, is all simply absent, and absence of bear witness is bear witness of absence. The effectiveness gap is one of date that cannot be bridged by persuasion, rather mandating is required, either through legislation, or through interventions with mandatory engagement, such as bespeak of choice information. However, there is a part for behavioral theory: firstly, in providing efficacious back up for individuals wishing to modify; secondly, as a minor dimension of a social practice arroyo, which places historic and contemporary social and economic forces that lead to the being of social practices, and that sustain them, at the centre, rather than the contemporary behaviors of individuals. Social practices can exist disrupted over time through the incremental interplay of legislative mandating, and social change that creates the conditions for legislation. Yet, the circumstances and pace of disruption are rooted in understanding social and economical causation, and how this underpins the distribution and acceptance of behaviors in a population, not in aggregative attempts to effect individual behavior change.

References

1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA-Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69–xc.

   PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

2. Loef M, Walach H. The combined effects of healthy lifestyle behaviors on all crusade bloodshed: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med. 2012;55:163–70.

   PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

3. Hackshaw A, Morris JK, Boniface S, Tang J-50, Milenković D. Low cigarette consumption and chance of coronary heart affliction and stroke: meta-assay of 141 cohort studies in 55 report reports. BMJ. 2018;360:j5855.

   PubMed  PubMed Fundamental  Article  Google Scholar

4. Wyatt SB, Winters KP, Dubbert PM. Overweight and obesity: prevalence, consequences, and causes of a growing public health trouble. Am J Med Sci. 2006;166–174:166–74.

   Article  Google Scholar

5. Finucane MM, Stevens GA, Cowan MJ, Danaei Yard, Lin JK, Paciorek CJ, Singh GM, Gutierrez Hr, Lu Y, Bahalim AN, et al. National, regional, and global trends in trunk-mass index since 1980: systematic analysis of wellness examination surveys and epidemiological studies with 960 country-years and 9.1 million participants. Lancet. 2011;377:557–67.

   PubMed  PubMed Cardinal  Article  Google Scholar

6. Michie S, Abraham C. Identifying techniques that promote health behaviour change: evidence based or prove inspired? Psychol Health. 2004;19:29–49.

   Article  Google Scholar

7. Glanz K, Bishop DB. The function of behavioral scientific discipline theory in development and implementation of public health interventions. Ann Rev Pub Health. 2010;31:399–418.

   Article  Google Scholar

8. Michie S, Carey RN, Johnston M, Rothman AJ, de Bruin M, Kelly MP, Connell LE. From theory-inspired to theory-based interventions: a protocol for developing and testing a methodology for linking behaviour change techniques to theoretical mechanisms of activeness. Ann Behav Med. 2017;52:501–12.

   PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

9. Sheeran P, Klein WMP, Rothman AJ. Wellness behavior change: moving from ascertainment to intervention. Ann Rev Psychol. 2017;68:573–600.

   PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

10. Johnson BT, Acabchuk RL. What are the keys to a longer, happier life? Answers from five decades of health psychology research. Soc Sci Med. 2018;196:218–26.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

11. Klein WMP, Shepperd JA, Suls J, Rothman AJ, Croyle RT. Realizing the promise of social psychology in improving public health. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2015;19:77–92.

    Commodity  Google Scholar

12. Rothman AJ, Klein WMP, Cameron LD. Advancing innovations in social/personality psychology and health: opportunities and challenges. Wellness Psychol. 2013;32:602–eight.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

13. Kelly MP, Barker Grand. Why is changing wellness-related behaviour then difficult? Pub Health. 2016;136:109–16.

    Commodity  Google Scholar

14. Davis R, Campbell R, Hildon Z, Hobbs Fifty, Michie S. Theories of behaviour and behaviour alter across the social and behavioural sciences: a scoping review. Health Psychol Rev. 2015;nine:323–44.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

15. King A. Theory's role in shaping behavioral wellness research for population health. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12:146.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar

16. Teixeira PJ, Carraca E, Markland DA, Silva Thou, Ryan RM. Exercise, physical action, and self-decision theory: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:78.

    PubMed  PubMed Key  Article  Google Scholar

17. Ferguson E. Personality is of primal concern to empathize wellness: towards a theoretical model for health psychology. Wellness Psychol Rev. 2013;seven:S32–70.

    PubMed  PubMed Fundamental  Article  Google Scholar

18. Kelder SH, Hoelscher DM, Perry CL. How individuals, environments, and wellness behaviors interact. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, editors. Wellness behavior: Theory, enquiry, and practice. 5th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2015. p. 159–82.

    Google Scholar

19. Puggina A, Aleksovska 1000, Cadet C, Burns C, Cardon One thousand, Carlin A, Chantal S, Ciarapica D, Condello Chiliad, Coppinger T, et al. Policy determinants of concrete activity across the life course: a 'DEDIPAC' umbrella systematic literature review. Eur J Pub Health. 2017;28:105–18.

    Article  Google Scholar

20. Sallis JF, Owen Due north, Fisher EB. Ecological models of wellness beliefs. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, editors. Health behavior and wellness education: Theory, research, and practise. 5th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2015. p. 43–64.

    Google Scholar

21. Hovell Chiliad, Wahlgren D, Adams One thousand. The logical and empirical footing for the behavioral ecological model. In: Emerging theories in health promotion practice and enquiry. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2009. p. 415–49.

    Google Scholar

22. Abraham C. Mapping modifiable mechanisms in health promotion research: a commentary on Sniehotta, Presseau, and Araújo-Soares. Health Psychol Rev. 2015;9:160–4.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

23. Massey SH, Decety J, Wisner KL, Wakschlag LS. Specification of modify mechanisms in meaning smokers for malleable target identification: a novel arroyo to a tenacious public health trouble. Front Public Health. 2017;5:12.

    Article  Google Scholar

24. Kok G, Gottlieb NH, Peters Thou-JY, Mullen PD, Parcel GS, Ruiter RAC, Fernández ME, Markham C, Bartholomew LK. A taxonomy of beliefs alter methods: An intervention mapping approach. Health Psychol Rev. 2016;x:297–312.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Key  Google Scholar

25. Knittle G, Nurmi J, Crutzen R, Hankonen North, Beattie Thousand, Dombrowski SU. How can interventions increase motivation for concrete activity? A systematic review and meta-assay. Health Psychol Rev. 2018;12:211–30.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

26. Silva MN, Vieira PN, Coutinho SR, Minderico CS, Matos MG, Sardinha LB, Teixeira PJ. Using self-determination theory to promote physical activeness and weight command: a randomized controlled trial in women. J Behav Med. 2010;33:110–22.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

27. Steinmetz H, Knappstein M, Ajzen I, Schmidt P, Kabst R. How effective are behavior modify interventions based on the theory of planned behavior? A three-level meta-analysis. Z Psychol-J Psychol. 2016;224:216–33.

    Google Scholar

28. Sheeran P, Maki A, Montanaro E, Avishai-Yitshak A, Bryan A, Klein WMP, Miles E, Rothman AJ. The impact of changing attitudes, norms, and cocky-efficacy on health-related intentions and beliefs: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2016;35:1178–88.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

29. Tessier D, Sarrazin P, Nicaise V, Dupont JP. The furnishings of persuasive communication and planning on intentions to exist more physically active and on concrete activity behaviour among low-active adolescents. Psychol Wellness. 2015;thirty:583–604.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

30. Williams GC, McGregor HA, Sharp D, Kouides RW, Levesque CS, Ryan RM, Deci EL. A self-determination multiple risk intervention trial to meliorate smokers' wellness. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:1288–94.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Commodity  Google Scholar

31. Albarracín D, Gillette JC, Earl AN, Glasman LR, Durantini MR, Ho MH. A test of major assumptions most behavior change: a comprehensive look at the effects of passive and agile HIV-prevention interventions since the beginning of the epidemic. Psychol Bull. 2005;131:856–97.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar

32. Heath GW, Parra DC, Sarmiento OL, Andersen LB, Owen N, Goenka South, Montes F, Brownson RC. Evidence-based intervention in physical activity: lessons from around the globe. Lancet. 2012;380:272–81.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Commodity  Google Scholar

33. May S, West R. Practice social support interventions ("buddy systems") aid smoking cessation? A review. Tob Con. 2000;9:415–22.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar

34. Wakefield MA, Loken B, Hornik RC. Apply of mass media campaigns to change health behaviour. Lancet. 2010;376:1261–71.

    PubMed  PubMed Key  Article  Google Scholar

35. Brewer NT, Hall MG, Noar SM. Pictorial cigarette pack warnings increase quitting: a comment on Kok et al. Health Psychol Rev. 2018;12:129–32.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

36. Brewer NT, Hall MG, Noar SM, Parada H, Stein-Seroussi A, Bach LE, Hanley South, Ribisl KM. Effect of pictorial cigarette pack warnings on changes in smoking beliefs: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Int Med. 2016;176:905–12.

    Article  Google Scholar

37. Borland R. Misinterpreting theory and ignoring bear witness: fear appeals tin can actually work: a annotate on Kok et al. (2018). Wellness Psychol Rev. 2018;12:126–8.

    PubMed  Commodity  Google Scholar

38. Durkin Southward, Brennan E, Wakefield MA. Mass media campaigns to promote smoking cessation among adults: An integrative review. Tob Con. 2012;21:127–38.

    Commodity  Google Scholar

39. Doran K, Resnick B, Kim N, Lynn D, McCormick T. Applying the social ecological model and theory of self-efficacy in the worksite heart wellness comeback project-PLUS. Res Theor Nurs Prac. 2017;31:viii–27.

    Article  Google Scholar

40. Aittasalo M, Tiilikainen J, Tokola G, Seimelä T, Sarjala Southward-M, Metsäpuro P, Hynynen A, Suni J, Sievänen H, Vähä-Ypyä H, et al. Socio-ecological intervention to promote active commuting to piece of work: protocol and baseline findings of a cluster randomized controlled trial in Finland. Int J Environ Res Pub Health. 2017;14:1257.

    Article  Google Scholar

41. Allais O, Bazoche P, Teyssier Southward. Getting more than people on the stairs: the touch on of point-of-decision prompts. Soc Sci Med. 2017;192:xviii–27.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

42. Kremers SPJ, Eves FF, Andersen RE. Environmental changes to promote physical action and healthy dietary behavior. J Environ Pub Wellness. 2012;2012:4.

    Google Scholar

43. Lewis AL, Eves FF. Prompts to increase stair climbing in stations: the issue of bulletin complexity. J Phys Human activity Health. 2012;9:954–61.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

44. Waterlander WE, Steenhuis IHM, Boer MR, Schuit AJ, Seidell JC. The effects of a 25% discount on fruits and vegetables: results of a randomized trial in a 3-dimensional web-based supermarket. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:11.

    PubMed  PubMed Cardinal  Article  Google Scholar

45. Marteau TM, Ogilvie D, Roland Thousand, Suhrcke M, Kelly MP. Judging nudging: tin nudging amend population health? BMJ. 2011;342:d228.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

46. Venema TAG, Kroese FM, De Ridder DTD. I'g withal standing: a longitudinal study on the effect of a default nudge. Psychol Health. 2017;33:669–81.

    Article  Google Scholar

47. Michie Due south, Abraham C, Whittington C, McAteer J, Gupta S. Effective techniques in good for you eating and physical activity interventions: a meta-regression. Health Psychol. 2009;28:690–701.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

48. Olander E, Fletcher H, Williams Due south, Atkinson Fifty, Turner A, French D. What are the nigh effective techniques in changing obese individuals' concrete activity cocky-efficacy and behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Human activity. 2013;10:29.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Commodity  Google Scholar

49. Stead 1000, Craigie A, Macleod Grand, McKell J, Caswell S, Steele R, Anderson A. Why are some people more than successful at lifestyle change than others? Factors associated with successful weight loss in the BeWEL randomised controlled trial of adults at risk of colorectal cancer. Int J Behav Med Phys Human activity. 2015;12:87.

    Article  Google Scholar

50. Carfora Five, Caso D, Conner MT. Randomized controlled trial of a messaging intervention to increment fruit and vegetable intake in adolescents: Affective versus instrumental messages. Br J Health Psychol. 2016;21:937–55.

    PubMed  Commodity  Google Scholar

51. Hollands GJ, Shemilt I, Marteau TM, Jebb SA, Lewis HB, Wei Y, Higgins JPT, Ogilvie D. Portion, parcel or tableware size for changing choice and consumption of food, booze and tobacco. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;9:CD011045.

    Google Scholar

52. Prestwich A, Sniehotta FF, Whittington C, Dombrowski SU, Rogers 50, Michie South. Does theory influence the effectiveness of health behavior interventions? Meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2014;33:465–74.

    PubMed  Commodity  Google Scholar

53. Conn VS, Hafdahl AR, Cooper PS, Chocolate-brown LM, Lusk SL. Meta-assay of workplace concrete activeness interventions. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37:330–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar

54. McDermott MS, Oliver One thousand, Iverson D, Sharma R. Constructive techniques for changing physical activity and salubrious eating intentions and behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Wellness Psychol. 2016;21:827–41.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

55. Goodwin L, Ostuzzi 1000, Khan Northward, Hotopf MH, Moss-Morris R. Tin can nosotros identify the active ingredients of behaviour alter interventions for coronary heart disease patients? A systematic review and meta-assay. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0153271.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar

56. Michie S, Prestwich A. Are interventions theory-based? Development of a theory coding scheme. Health Psychol. 2010;29:1–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

57. Michie S, Carey R, Johnston M, Rothman AJ, Kelly Grand, Davidson M, de Bruin M. From theory-inspired to theory-based interventions: linking behaviour change techniques to their mechanisms of activeness. Eur Health Psychol. 2016;18:395.

    Google Scholar

58. Michie Due south, Abraham C. Advancing the science of behaviour change: a plea for scientific reporting. Addiction. 2008;103:1409–x.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

59. Marteau TM, Dieppe P, Foy R, Kinmonth A-L, Schneiderman N. Behavioural medicine: irresolute our behaviour. BMJ. 2006;332:437–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar

60. Russell LM, Rubin GL, Leeder SR. Preventive wellness reform: what does it hateful for public wellness? Med J Austr. 2008;188:715–9.

    Google Scholar

61. Abu-Omar K, Rütten A, Burlacu I, Schätzlein V, Messing S, Suhrcke Thou. The cost-effectiveness of concrete activeness interventions: a systematic review of reviews. Prev Med Rep. 2017;8:72–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Primal  Article  Google Scholar

62. Marteau TM. Changing minds near changing behaviour. Lancet. 2018;391:116–vii.

    PubMed  Commodity  Google Scholar

63. Rothman AJ. Capitalizing on opportunities to refine health behavior theories. Health Educ Behav. 2009;36:150S–5S.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

64. Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA, Balderdash SS, Estabrooks P. The future of wellness behavior change research: what is needed to improve translation of enquiry into wellness promotion practice? Ann Behav Med. 2004;27:3–12.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

65. Michie S, West R. Behaviour change theory and evidence: a presentation to regime. Health Psychol Rev. 2013;vii:1–22.

    Commodity  Google Scholar

66. Bauer MS, Damschroder Fifty, Hagedorn H, Smith J, Kilbourne AM. An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist. BMC Psychol. 2015;3:32.

    PubMed  PubMed Primal  Commodity  Google Scholar

67. Moullin J, Sabater-Hernández D, Benrimoj S. Evolution of a theoretically based implementation protocol. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;fourteen:P83.

    PubMed Primal  Article  Google Scholar

68. Rosenberg D, Kerr J, Sallis JF, Patrick K, Moore DJ, King A. Feasibility and outcomes of a multilevel place-based walking intervention for seniors: a airplane pilot study. Health Place. 2009;fifteen:173–9.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

69. Reis RS, Salvo D, Ogilvie D, Lambert EV, Goenka S, Brownson RC. Scaling upwardly physical activity interventions worldwide: stepping up to larger and smarter approaches to go people moving. Lancet. 2016;388:1337–48.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar

70. Diepeveen S, Ling T, Suhrcke M, Roland One thousand, Marteau TM. Public acceptability of government intervention to change wellness-related behaviours: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC Pub Health. 2013;xiii:756.

    Article  Google Scholar

71. World Obesity Federation. Trends in globl obesity. London: World Obesity Federation; 2017.

    Google Scholar

72. Health Survey for England. Health survey for England, 2016. London: Office of National Statistics; 2017.

    Google Scholar

73. World Obesity Federation. Trends in prevalence of obesity in adults from selected emerging countries. London: World Obesity Federation; 2017.

    Google Scholar

74. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2018 state indicator report on fruits and vegtables, vol. 2018. Atlanta: Centers for Affliction Control and Prevention; 2018.

    Google Scholar

75. Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries. Written report of survey on markets of vegetables and fruits. Tokyo: MAFF; 2011.

    Google Scholar

76. Food and Agriculture Clan of the Un. Country written report: Brazil. Rome: FAO; 2012.

    Google Scholar

77. Guthold R, Stevens GA, Riley LM, Balderdash FC. Worldwide trends in insufficient concrete activity from 2001 to 2016: A pooled analysis of 358 population-based surveys with xix one thousand thousand participants. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6:e1077–86.

    PubMed  Commodity  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

78. Meseguer CM, Galán I, Herruzo R, Rodríguez-Artalejo F. Tendencias de actividad física en tiempo libre y en el trabajo en la Comunidad de Madrid, 1995-2008. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2011;64:21–7.

    PubMed  Commodity  Google Scholar

79. Physical Activity Guidelines Informational Committee. Physical activity guidelines advisory committee report. Washington, DC: DHHS; 2008.

    Google Scholar

80. Zhang B, Zhai FY, Du SF, Popkin BM. The China wellness and nutrition survey, 1989–2011. Obes Rev. 2014;15:two–7.

    PubMed  Commodity  Google Scholar

81. European Environment Bureau. The shift in global disease brunt, and share of non-communicable diseases by world regions. Copenhagen: EEA; 2017.

    Google Scholar

82. Hallal PC, Bauman AE, Heath GW, Kohl HW tertiary, Lee IM, Pratt M. Physical activity: more of the same is not enough. Lancet. 2012;380:190–i.

    PubMed  Commodity  Google Scholar

83. Weed ME. Should nosotros privilege sport for wellness? The comparative effectiveness of Great britain government investment in sport equally a public wellness intervention. Int J Sport Policy Polit. 2016;8:559–76.

    Article  Google Scholar

84. Courneya KS. Efficacy, effectiveness, and beliefs change trials in exercise enquiry. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7:81.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar

85. Wells KB. Treatment research at the crossroads: the scientific interface of clinical trials and effectiveness research. Am J Psychiat. 1999;156:v–ten.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

86. Suvarna 5. Phase Four of drug development. Persp Clin Res. 2010;1:57–60.

    Google Scholar

87. Loma TP. Conducting phase Iv clinical studies: A moral imperative? ecancer. 2012;half dozen:276.

    Google Scholar

88. Beedie C, Mann S, Jimenez A. Community fitness heart-based physical activity interventions: a brief review. Curr Sport Med Rep. 2014;xiii:267–74.

    Article  Google Scholar

89. Beedie C, Mann Due south, Jimenez A, Kennedy 50, Lane AM, Domone S, Wilson Due south, Whyte G. Death past effectiveness: practise as medicine defenseless in the efficacy trap! Br J Sports Med. 2016;50:323–4.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

90. Jilcott Due south, Ammerman AS, Sommers J, Glasgow RE. Applying the RE-AIM framework to assess the public health bear on of policy change. Ann Behav Med. 2007;34:105–14.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

91. DCMS. Taking office survey. London: Section for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport; 2018.

    Google Scholar

92. England S. Active people survey. London: Sport England; 2016.

    Google Scholar

93. Dunn AL, Marcus BH, Kampert JB, Garcia ME, Kohl HW, Blair SN. Reduction in cardiovascular disease Rrisk factors: vi-calendar month results from ProjectActive. Prev Med. 1997;26:883–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

94. England Southward. Tackling inactivity. Sport England: London; 2016.

    Google Scholar

95. Marmot 1000. Social determinants of health inequalities. Lancet. 2005;365:1099–104.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

96. Kelly MP, Russo F. Causal narratives in public health: the difference between mechanisms of aetiology and mechanisms of prevention in non-communicable diseases. Sociol Wellness Ill. 2018;40:82–99.

    Article  Google Scholar

97. Fava JL, Velicer WF, Prochaska JO. Applying the transtheoretical model to a representative sample of smokers. Addict Behav. 1995;20:189–203.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

98. Carbonari JP, DiClemente CC. Using transtheoretical model profiles to differentiate levels of alcohol forbearance success. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68:810–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

99. Finckenor Yard, Byrd-Bredbenner C. Nutrition intervention group program based on preaction-stage oriented change processes of the transtheoretical model promotes long-term reduction in dietary fat intake. J Acad Nutr Nutrition. 2000;100:335–42.

    CAS  Google Scholar

100. Marcus BH, Simkin LR. The trantheoretical model: applications to exercise behaviour. J Am Coll Sport Med. 1994;26:1400–4.

     CAS  Google Scholar

101. Milkman KL, Beshears J, Choi JJ, Laibson D, Madrian BC. Using implementation intentions prompts to raise influenza vaccination rates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108:10415–20.

     CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Commodity  Google Scholar

102. Benartzi South, Beshears J, Milkman KL, Sunstein CR, Thaler RH, Shankar M, Tucker-Ray Due west, Congdon WJ, Galing Southward. Should governments invest more in nudging? Psychol Sci. 2017;28:1041–55.

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar

103. Ali MK, Echouffo-Tcheugui JB, Williamson DF. How effective were lifestyle interventions in existent-earth settings that were modeled on the diabetes prevention program? Health Aff. 2012;31:67–75.

     Article  Google Scholar

104. An R, Xiang X, Yang Y, Yan H. Mapping the prevalence of physical inactivity in U.S. States, 1984–2015. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0168175.

     PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar

105. Stokols D. Establishing and maintaining healthy environments: Toward a social ecology of health promotion. Am Psychol. 1992;47:6–22.

     CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar

106. Cohn S. From wellness behaviours to wellness practices: An introduction. Sociol Health Ill. 2014;36:157–62.

     Commodity  Google Scholar

107. Blue S, Shove E, Carmona C, Kelly MP. Theories of practice and public health: understanding (un) healthy practices. Crit Pub Health. 2016;26:36–50.

     Article  Google Scholar

108. Bauld L. The impact of smokefree legislation in England: evidence review. London: Department of Wellness; 2011.

     Google Scholar

109. Kuhn T. The construction of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Academy of Chicaco Press; 1962.

     Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

Martin Hagger'south contribution was supported by a Republic of finland Distinguished Professor (FiDiPro) award (Dnro 1801/31/2105) from Business Republic of finland.

Availability of data and materials

No data is available for this manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

1. Martin South. Hagger and Mike Weed contributed equally to this work.

Affiliations

1. Psychological Sciences and Wellness Sciences Research Plant, University of California, Merced, USA

   Martin S. Hagger

2. Faculty of Sport and Wellness Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

   Martin S. Hagger

3. School of Applied Psychology, Griffith Academy, Brisbane, Australia

   Martin S. Hagger

4. Wellness Psychology and Behavioral Medicine Research Group, School of Psychology, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

   Martin S. Hagger

5. Middle for Sport, Physical Didactics & Activeness Research (SPEAR), Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, United kingdom

   Mike Weed

Contributions

MSH and MW conceived the thought and drafted the manuscript. Both authors contributed equally to this article. Both authors read and approved the last manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Martin Southward. Hagger or Mike Weed.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approving and consent to participate

Ethical approval and consent is non applicable to this type of manuscript.

Consent for publication

MSH and MW consent to the content of the manuscript to be published every bit presented.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This commodity is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/four.0/), which permits unrestricted utilise, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided yous requite appropriate credit to the original writer(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Artistic Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/i.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

About this commodity

Cite this commodity

Hagger, M.S., Weed, M. DEBATE: Exercise interventions based on behavioral theory work in the real world?. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Human action 16, 36 (2019). https://doi.org/x.1186/s12966-019-0795-4

Download commendation

• Received: xiv December 2018

• Accustomed: 27 March 2019

• Published: 25 Apr 2019

• DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-019-0795-iv

Keywords

• Behavioural interventions
• Health behaviour modify
• Efficacy
• Effectiveness
• Health outcomes
• Implementation

Source: https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12966-019-0795-4

Posted by: ballardloffinds.blogspot.com

Share this post