British Journal of Health Psychology 

About: British Journal of Health Psychology is an academic journal published by British Psychological Society. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Psychological intervention & Population. It has an ISSN identifier of 1359-107X. Over the lifetime, 1331 publications have been published receiving 67956 citations. The journal is also known as: Health psychology.

Ecological momentary interventions: incorporating mobile technology into psychosocial and health behaviour treatments.

Abstract: Purpose Psychosocial and health behaviour treatments and therapies can be extended beyond traditional research or clinical settings by using mobile technology to deliver interventions to individuals as they go about their daily lives. These ecological momentary interventions (EMIs) are treatments that are provided to people during their everyday lives (i.e. in real time) and in natural settings (i.e. real world). The goal of the present review is to synthesize and critique mobile technology-based EMI aimed at improving health behaviours and psychological and physical symptoms. Methods Twenty-seven interventions using palmtop computers or mobile phones to deliver ambulatory treatment for smoking cessation, weight loss, anxiety, diabetes management, eating disorders, alcohol use, and healthy eating and physical activity were identified. Results There is evidence that EMI can be successfully delivered, are accepted by patients, and are efficacious for treating a variety of health behaviours and physical and psychological symptoms. Limitations of the existing literature were identified and recommendations and considerations for research design, sample characteristics, measurement, statistical analyses, and clinical implementation are discussed. Conclusions Mobile technology-based EMI can be effectively implemented as interventions for a variety of health behaviours and psychological and physical symptoms. Future research should integrate the assessment and intervention capabilities of mobile technology to create dynamically and individually tailored EMI that are ecologically sensitive.

Demographic and attitudinal determinants of protective behaviours during a pandemic: A review

Abstract: Purpose A new strain of H1N1 influenza, also known as swine flu was confirmed in the UK in May 2009 and has spread to over 100 countries around the world causing the World Health Organization to declare a global flu pandemic. The primary objectives of this review are to identify the key demographic and attitudinal determinants of three types of protective behaviour during a pandemic: preventive, avoidant, and management of illness behaviours, in order to describe conceptual frameworks in which to better understand these behaviours and to inform future communications and interventions in the current outbreak of swine flu and subsequent influenza pandemics. Methods Web of Science and PubMed databases were searched for references to papers on severe acute respiratory syndrome, avian influenza/flu, H5N1, swine influenza/flu, H1N1, and pandemics. Forward searching of the identified references was also carried out. In addition, references were gleaned from an expert panel of the Behaviour and Communications sub-group of the UK Scientific Pandemic Influenza Advisory Group. Papers were included if they reported associations between demographic factors, attitudes, and a behavioural measure (reported, intended, or actual behaviour). Results Twenty-six papers were identified that met the study inclusion criteria. The studies were of variable quality and most lacked an explicit theoretical framework. Most were cross-sectional in design and therefore not predictive over time. The research shows that there are demographic differences in behaviour: being older, female and more educated, or non-White, is associated with a higher chance of adopting the behaviours. There is evidence that greater levels of perceived susceptibility to and perceived severity of the diseases and greater belief in the effectiveness of recommended behaviours to protect against the disease are important predictors of behaviour. There is also evidence that greater levels of state anxiety and greater trust in authorities are associated with behaviour. Conclusions The findings from this review can be broadly explained by theories of health behaviour. However, theoretically driven prospective studies are required to further clarify the relationship between demographic factors, attitudes, and behaviour. The findings suggest that intervention studies and communication strategies should focus on particular demographic groups and on raising levels of perceived threat of the pandemic disease and belief in the effectiveness of measures designed to protect against it.

Combining motivational and volitional interventions to promote exercise participation: Protection motivation theory and implementation intentions

Abstract: Objective: This study compared a motivational intervention based on protection motivation theory (PMT, Rogers, 1975, 1983) with the same motivational intervention augmented by a volitional intervention based on implementation intentions (Gollwitzer, 1993) Design: The study had a longitudinal design, involving three waves of data collection over a 2-week period, incorporating an experimental manipulation of PMT variables at Time 1 and a volitional, implementation intention intervention at Time 2 Method: Participants (N=248) were randomly allocated to a control group or one of two intervention groups Cognitions and exercise behaviour were measured at three time-points over a 2-week period Results: The motivational intervention significantly increased threat and coping appraisal and intentions to engage in exercise but did not bring about a significant increase in subsequent exercise behaviour In contrast, the combined protection motivation theory/implementation intention intervention had a dramatic effect on subsequent exercise behaviour Thisvolitional intervention did not influence behavioural intention or any other motivational variables Conclusions: It is concluded that supplementing PMT with implementation intentions strengthens the ability of the model to explain behaviour This has implications for health education programmes, which should aim to increase both participants' motivation and their volition

A validity and reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale

Abstract: Stress and coping theory has provided a foundation for a wide range of descriptive studies of the stress process. There is less evidence for its utility as a foundation for coping interventions. One of the impediments of the translation of stress and coping theory into intervention has to do with well-documented problems with the measurement of intervention-associated changes in coping (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). The present study describes a measure of coping self-efficacy (CSE), which provides an alternate approach to the measurement of coping for intervention studies. This measure focuses on changes in a person’s confidence in his or her ability to cope effectively, which, according to self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997), is an important prerequisite to changing coping behaviour. Stress and coping theory defines stress as a person-environment relationship that is evaluated as personally significant and as exceeding a person’s resources for coping. This process is referred to as ‘primary appraisal’. Coping is defined as behavioural or cognitive efforts to manage situations that are appraised as stressful (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Coping involves both emotion-focused coping (i.e. responses that focus on managing emotional responses to stressful events), and problem-focused coping (i.e. responses that focus on changing problematic aspects of stressful events). The choice of coping strategy is influenced by the appraisal of options for coping, referred to in stress and coping theory as ‘secondary appraisal’ (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Secondary appraisal refers to the question, ‘What can I do?’ A key aspect of secondary appraisal is the judgment concerning the extent to which the individual can control the outcome of the situation. Self-efficacy contributes to this judgment, which in turn influences coping (see Park & Folkman, 1997 for review). Maladaptive coping (e.g. coping that fails to regulate distress or manage the underlying problem) occurs when people respond to uncontrollable stressors primarily with problem-focused coping strategies, or when people respond to controllable stressors primarily with emotion-focused coping strategies (Strentz & Auerbach, 1988; Vitaliano, DeWolfe, Maiuro, Russo, & Katon, 1990). Adaptive coping refers to situations in which there is a fit between the controllability of the stressful situation and the choice of coping strategy (i.e. emotion-focused versus problem-focused). When people obtain a ‘fit’ between stressful events and their coping strategies, they experience fewer psychological symptoms than when there is a lack of fit (Park, Folkman, & Bostrom, 2001). Cognitive behavioural interventions such as coping effectiveness training (CET; Chesney, Chambers, Taylor, & Johnson, 2003; Chesney, Chambers, Taylor, Johnson, & Folkman, 2003; Chesney, Folkman, & Chambers, 1996; Folkman & Chesney, 1995), which are based on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997) as well as stress and coping theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), strive to increase adaptive coping, and, by doing so, reduce psychological distress and improve well-being. Perceived self-efficacy, defined as a belief about one’s ability to perform a specific behaviour, is a pivotal component of social cognitive theory in that beliefs of personal efficacy determine the acquisition of knowledge on which skills are founded (Bandura, 1997). Thus, beliefs about one’s ability to perform specific coping behaviours, or CSE, would be expected to influence outcomes of interventions designed to improve coping. This concept is also relevant to stress and coping theory and the secondary appraisal of controllability. Part of secondary appraisal is the judgment that an outcome is controllable through coping; another part addresses the question of whether or not the individual believes he or she can carry out the requisite coping strategy. Beliefs about self-efficacy are not a general disposition; a high level of efficacy in one domain does not necessarily correlate with high levels of self-efficacy in other domains (DiClemente, 1986; Hofstetter, Sallis, & Hovell, 1990). To achieve predictive and explanatory power, measures of self-efficacy must be designed and tailored to the sphere of activity (Forsyth & Carey, 1998). For example, self-efficacy regarding diabetic self-care behaviours has been identified as a pivotal psychosocial variable in diabetes research (Glasgow & Osteen, 1992; Jenkins, 1995), with scores on self-efficacy significantly associated with self-care by diabetics in the areas of diet, exercise and blood glucose testing (Williams & Bond, 2002). Efficacy beliefs also predict adherence to habits that lower cardiovascular risk and prevent myocardial infarctions in persons with coronary heart disease (Ewart, 1992; Jensen, Banwart, Venhaus, Popkess-Vawter, & Perkins, 1993). These lines of clinical investigation each developed specialized efficacy scales. The current study is designed to assess the reliability and validity of the CSE scale, a 26-item measure of perceived self-efficacy for coping with challenges or threats. The original instrument was developed by the authors, in collaboration with Dr Albert Bandura of Stanford University, for use in two randomized clinical trials investigating the efficacy of a theory-based CET intervention in reducing psychological distress and increasing positive mood in persons coping with chronic illness. In this paper, we subjected the CSE scale items to focused analyses with the specific goal of deriving a psychometrically sound and reduced form of the scale for use in future research. Analyses included assessing construct validity through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA, respectively), assessing reliability through internal consistency coefficient alphas and test–retest correlations, and assessing concurrent and predictive validity through partial correlations and multiple regression analyses, respectively.

What is the best way to change self-efficacy to promote lifestyle and recreational physical activity? A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Abstract: Purpose Increasing self-efficacy is an effective method to increase physical activity Despite this, the evidence concerning the most effective techniques to increase self-efficacy in physical activity interventions has not been systematically reviewed The aim of the present research is to systematically gather, and meta-analyse, intervention studies which aimed to increase self-efficacy for physical activity; to estimate the association between intervention techniques used, and change in self-efficacy achieved Methods A systematic database search was conducted for papers reporting lifestyle or recreational physical activity interventions Published intervention studies explicitly targeting self-efficacy in order to change physical activity behaviour in ‘healthy’ adults were eligible for inclusion Results The search strategy identified 27 unique physical activity intervention studies, with a total of 5,501 participants A significant, yet small, relationship between the interventions and changes in self-efficacy was found (mean d =016, p <001) Owing to significant heterogeneity, moderator analyses were conducted, examining the association of changes in self-efficacy with whether or not specific intervention techniques were used Interventions that included feedback on past or others' performance produced the highest levels of self-efficacy found in this review Vicarious experience was also associated with higher levels of self-efficacy Persuasion, graded mastery, and barrier identification were associated with lower levels of self-efficacy Conclusions This meta-analysis forms an evidence base for which psychological techniques are most effective in increasing self-efficacy for physical activity The results are presented in terms of recommendations for those developing interventions and directions for future research