ReviewBritish journal of health psychology2026
Beyond the cross-section: Rethinking the intention-behaviour gap through a conceptual and methodological lens.
Review in British journal of health psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Primary Care Quality and Revisit Intention Among Hong Kong Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Long-term lifestyle effects of prehabilitation in colorectal cancer.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
- Exploring the Predictors of Physical Activity in Older Adults in South Korea Using the Health Belief Model.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Beyond the cross-section: Rethinking the intention-behaviour gap through a conceptual and methodological lens.British journal of health psychology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe intention-behaviour gap (IBG) remains a persistent challenge in health psychology. While intentions are widely recognized as proximal determinants of behaviour, they frequently fail to translate into action. This conceptual review aims to critically evaluate dominant models of the IBG and propose a dynamic, multidimensional reconceptualization of intention-behaviour processes.
methodsThis conceptual review critically evaluates dominant models of the IBG-the Explained Variance Approach and the Action Control Framework. Special emphasis is placed on methodological constraints associated with between-person research designs, which inadequately capture the temporal and contextual variability of behavioural enactment.
resultsTheoretical and empirical limitations are identified in existing IBG models, including their failure to address intra-individual fluctuations, situational contingencies and the time-indexed nature of behavioural regulation. In response, we propose a framework emphasizing intensive longitudinal designs, within-person assessment, ecological momentary methods and person-specific modelling techniques to better capture intention-behaviour dynamics.
conclusionsTo close the IBG, future research should integrate dynamic methodologies and real-time interventions that align with situational and motivational states. We advocate for context-sensitive strategies, such as just-in-time adaptive interventions and implementation intentions, to enhance behavioural enactment. This reconceptualization offers a pathway towards more precise theory and effective intervention in health behaviour change.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.