Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26252889›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

A Systematic Review Exploring the Social Cognitive Theory of Self-Regulation as a Framework for Chronic Health Condition Interventions.

Michelle E Tougas, Jill A Hayden, Patrick J McGrath, Anna Huguet, Sharlene Rozario

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 137 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michelle E TougasCommunity Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; Psychology and Neuroscience, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; Centre for Research in Family Health, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Jill A HaydenCommunity Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Patrick J McGrathCommunity Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; Centre for Research in Family Health, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; Canada Research Chair, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; Science, Pediatrics, and Psychiatry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; Capital District Health Authority, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Anna HuguetCommunity Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; Centre for Research in Family Health, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Sharlene RozarioCentre for Research in Family Health, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Izaak Walton Killam Health Centre · CADalhousie University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTheory is often recommended as a framework for guiding hypothesized mechanisms of treatment effect. However, there is limited guidance about how to use theory in intervention development.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review to provide an exemplar review evaluating the extent to which use of theory is identified and incorporated within existing interventions. We searched electronic databases PubMed, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and EMBASE from inception to May 2014. We searched clinicaltrials.gov for registered protocols, reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and included studies, and conducted a citation search in Web of Science. We included peer-reviewed publications of interventions that referenced the social cognitive theory of self-regulation as a framework for interventions to manage chronic health conditions. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility. We contacted all authors of included studies for information detailing intervention content. We describe how often theory mechanisms were addressed by interventions, and report intervention characteristics used to address theory.

resultsOf 202 articles that reported using the social cognitive theory of self-regulation, 52% failed to incorporate self-monitoring, a main theory component, and were therefore excluded. We included 35 interventions that adequately used the theory framework. Intervention characteristics were often poorly reported in peer-reviewed publications, 21 of 35 interventions incorporated characteristics that addressed each of the main theory components. Each intervention addressed, on average, six of eight self-monitoring mechanisms, two of five self-judgement mechanisms, and one of three self-evaluation mechanisms. The self-monitoring mechanisms 'Feedback' and 'Consistency' were addressed by all interventions, whereas the self-evaluation mechanisms 'Self-incentives' and 'External rewards' were addressed by six and four interventions, respectively. The present review establishes that systematic review is a feasible method of identifying use of theory as a conceptual framework for existing interventions. We identified the social cognitive theory of self-regulation as a feasible framework to guide intervention development for chronic health conditions.

Indexed as

CognitionSelf-ControlSocial TheoryAdolescentAdultChildChronic DiseaseHumansJudgment

Identifiers

PMID26252889
PMCPMC4529200
OpenAlexW1955931869

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.