Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25793484›Full record

ArticleHealth psychology review2015

Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler: towards a protocol for accumulating evidence regarding the active content of health behaviour change interventions.

Gjalt-Jorn Ygram Peters, Marijn de Bruin, Rik Crutzen

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health psychology review, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 79 papers, 22 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 22 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

79 citing papers in PubMed, 22 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Enhancing Behavior Change Technique Coding Methods: Identifying Behavioral Targets and Delivery Styles in Smoking Cessation Trials.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2019
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. The Impact of Asking Intention or Self-Prediction Questions on Subsequent Behavior: A Meta-Analysis.Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc · 2016
    Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Gjalt-Jorn Ygram Petersa Department of Methodology & Statistics, Faculty of Psychology , Open University , Heerlen , The Netherlands.
Marijn de Bruin
Rik Crutzen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a need to consolidate the evidence base underlying our toolbox of methods of behaviour change. Recent efforts to this effect have conducted meta-regressions on evaluations of behaviour change interventions, deriving each method's effectiveness from its association to intervention effect size. However, there are a range of issues that raise concern about whether this approach is actually furthering or instead obstructing the advancement of health psychology theories and the quality of health behaviour change interventions. Using examples from theory, the literature and data from previous meta-analyses, these concerns and their implications are explained and illustrated. An iterative protocol for evidence base accumulation is proposed that integrates evidence derived from both experimental and applied behaviour change research, and combines theory development in experimental settings with theory testing in applied real-life settings. As evidence gathered in this manner accumulates, a cumulative science of behaviour change can develop.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorHealth PromotionPsychological TheoryExerciseHumansbehaviour changeevidence baseinterventionsmethodstaxonomytechniques

Identifiers

PMID25793484
PMCPMC4376231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.