Protection motivation theory and health behaviour: conceptual review, discussion of limitations, and recommendations for best practice and future research.

IF 6.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Health Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-10-17 DOI:10.1080/17437199.2024.2413011
Jessica Balla, Martin S Hagger
{"title":"Protection motivation theory and health behaviour: conceptual review, discussion of limitations, and recommendations for best practice and future research.","authors":"Jessica Balla, Martin S Hagger","doi":"10.1080/17437199.2024.2413011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Protection motivation theory is a pre-eminent health behaviour theory purposed to predict participation in health protection and risk behaviours. It has been widely applied across multiple behaviours, populations and contexts. In this conceptual review, we summarise research applying the theory and identify shortcomings and evidence gaps that limit reported inferences and impede theory and intervention development. Accordingly, we provide recommendations for best practices and suggestions for future research to resolve these limitations. Limitations identified include a dearth of comprehensive theory tests, sparse evidence of theory sufficiency, a lack of studies including additional constructs, overuse of correlational and cross-sectional research designs, a paucity of intervention studies and tests of theory-consistent mechanisms of action, few tests intrapersonal and environmental moderators of theory effects and measurement concerns. We provide recommendations to address these limitations including conducting comprehensive theory tests in support of nomological validity; incorporating past behaviour and other constructs to establish theory sufficiency and extend its scope; adopting cross-lagged panel and factorial experimental research designs to test directional effects, permit better causal inference and test mechanisms of action; testing effects of moderators to identify conditions that may affect theory applicability and developing measurement standards for study constructs and adopting non-self-report behaviour measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":48034,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"1-27"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2024.2413011","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Protection motivation theory is a pre-eminent health behaviour theory purposed to predict participation in health protection and risk behaviours. It has been widely applied across multiple behaviours, populations and contexts. In this conceptual review, we summarise research applying the theory and identify shortcomings and evidence gaps that limit reported inferences and impede theory and intervention development. Accordingly, we provide recommendations for best practices and suggestions for future research to resolve these limitations. Limitations identified include a dearth of comprehensive theory tests, sparse evidence of theory sufficiency, a lack of studies including additional constructs, overuse of correlational and cross-sectional research designs, a paucity of intervention studies and tests of theory-consistent mechanisms of action, few tests intrapersonal and environmental moderators of theory effects and measurement concerns. We provide recommendations to address these limitations including conducting comprehensive theory tests in support of nomological validity; incorporating past behaviour and other constructs to establish theory sufficiency and extend its scope; adopting cross-lagged panel and factorial experimental research designs to test directional effects, permit better causal inference and test mechanisms of action; testing effects of moderators to identify conditions that may affect theory applicability and developing measurement standards for study constructs and adopting non-self-report behaviour measures.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
保护动机理论与健康行为:概念回顾、局限性讨论以及最佳实践和未来研究建议。
保护动机理论是一种杰出的健康行为理论,旨在预测健康保护和风险行为的参与情况。该理论已被广泛应用于多种行为、人群和环境中。在这篇概念性综述中,我们总结了应用该理论进行的研究,并找出了限制报告推论、阻碍理论和干预措施发展的不足之处和证据差距。因此,我们提出了最佳实践建议和未来研究建议,以解决这些局限性。我们发现的局限性包括:缺乏全面的理论检验、理论充分性的证据稀少、缺乏包含额外建构的研究、过度使用相关性和横截面研究设计、缺乏干预研究和理论一致的作用机制检验、很少检验理论效应的个人和环境调节因素以及测量方面的问题。我们针对这些局限性提出了一些建议,包括进行全面的理论测试以支持名义有效性;纳入过去的行为和其他构造,以确定理论的充分性并扩大其范围;采用跨滞后面板和因子实验研究设计以测试方向性效应,允许更好的因果推论并测试作用机制;测试调节因素的效果以确定可能影响理论适用性的条件,以及为研究构造制定测量标准并采用非自我报告的行为测量方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Psychology Review
Health Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The publication of Health Psychology Review (HPR) marks a significant milestone in the field of health psychology, as it is the first review journal dedicated to this important and rapidly growing discipline. Edited by a highly respected team, HPR provides a critical platform for the review, development of theories, and conceptual advancements in health psychology. This prestigious international forum not only contributes to the progress of health psychology but also fosters its connection with the broader field of psychology and other related academic and professional domains. With its vital insights, HPR is a must-read for those involved in the study, teaching, and practice of health psychology, behavioral medicine, and related areas.
期刊最新文献
The prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder symptomatology and diagnosis in burn survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Yoga as an intervention for stress: a meta-analysis. Analytical decisions pose moral questions. Components of multiple health behaviour change interventions for patients with chronic conditions: a systematic review and meta-regression of randomized trials. Identifying the psychosocial barriers and facilitators associated with the uptake of genetic services for hereditary cancer syndromes: a systematic review of qualitative studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1