Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35297131›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of health psychology2022

Investigating the utility of the COM-B and TM model to explain changes in eating behaviour during pregnancy: A longitudinal cohort study.

Lauren Rockliffe, Sarah Peters, Debbie M Smith, Calvin Heal, Alexander E P Heazell

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of health psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Lauren RockliffeFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9546-8690
Sarah PetersFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, UK.
Debbie M SmithFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, UK.
Calvin HealFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, UK.
Alexander E P HeazellFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Maternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, School of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPregnancy has been described as a 'teachable moment' for behaviour change, which presents an important opportunity for health promotion within antenatal care settings. However, no pregnancy-specific model has been developed or tested in the context of health behaviour change during pregnancy. This study aimed to investigate and compare the utility of the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation Behaviour (COM-B) and Teachable Moments (TM) models, to explain health behaviour change during pregnancy, within the context of eating behaviour.

designLongitudinal cohort study.

methodsFive hundred and sixteen women completed a survey at between 12-16 weeks gestation (T1). Follow-up data were collected at 20-24 weeks (T2), 36-40 weeks (T3), and 6-12 weeks postnatally (T4). The primary outcome was eating behaviour. To assess the utility of the COM-B model, perceived capability, opportunity, and motivation to eat healthily were measured. To assess the utility of the TM model, risk perceptions, self-image, and affective response were measured.

resultsOverall, the COM-B model explained 18.4% of the variance in eating behaviour, whilst the TM model explained 9%. Both models explained the most variance in eating behaviour at T1 and T3, compared with T2 and T4. Small changes were observed in eating behaviour and the model constructs over the time period studied, although these were not clinically meaningful.

conclusionsNeither the COM-B nor TM model provide a satisfactory explanation of eating behaviour during pregnancy, however the findings suggest that certain stages of pregnancy may create more salient opportunities for behaviour change. The findings also support claims that motivation may not play a key role in directing eating behaviour during pregnancy. Further research is needed to explore the role of timing in antenatal behaviour change. The development of a pregnancy-specific model is necessary to optimise understanding of pregnancy as a teachable moment for behaviour change.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorMotivationFeeding BehaviorFemaleHealth PromotionHumansLongitudinal StudiesPregnancydieteatinglongitudinal studiespregnancypsychological theorysurveys and questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID35297131
PMCPMC9541598
OpenAlexW4220652369

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.