6533b827fe1ef96bd1286f14

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Known knowns and known unknowns on behavior change interventions and mechanisms of action.

Susette A. MoyersKaylyn McanallyLauren E. MckinleyMartin S Hagger

subject

Routine testingbehavior change techniqueHealth Behaviorputative mediatorsIntervention effectBehaviour change techniqueSelf-Control03 medical and health sciences0302 clinical medicineMeta-Analysis as TopicClinical ResearchkäyttäytymismallitBehavior TherapyIntervention (counseling)Behavioral and Social ScienceBehaviour change interventionsHumansPsychology030212 general & internal medicinesystematic reviews and meta-analysesskin and connective tissue diseaseskäyttäytyminensystemaattiset kirjallisuuskatsauksetbehavioural theorybehavioral theory030505 public healthResearchbehaviour change interventionmeta-analyysiBehavioural interventionBehavior change interventionsmechanisms of actionPsychiatry and Mental healthClinical PsychologySystematic reviewbehavior change interventionAction (philosophy)terveyskäyttäytyminensense organs0305 other medical sciencePsychologyPsychological TheoryCognitive psychologySystematic Reviews as Topic

description

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of research play an important role in summarizing current knowledge on the efficacy of the behavior change techniques and mechanisms of action that comprise behavioral interventions. The current reviews in the science of behavior change (SOBC) special issue represent a ‘step change’ in evaluating current evidence on behavior change interventions and mechanisms. This concluding article outlines the key findings and emerging issues identified in the reviews (‘known knowns’), and summarizes the evidence gaps highlighted by the reviews that need to be addressed in future research (‘known unknowns’). Specifically, findings of the reviews indicate that: tests of mechanisms of behavior change intervention are not routinely conducted by primary studies and research syntheses; intervention study quality is sub-optimal and reviews do not sufficiently account for study quality when assessing intervention effects and mechanisms; substantive variability exists in descriptions of intervention content and putative mediators implicated in their mechanisms of action; limited data is available on the efficacy of many behavior change techniques; and moderators of intervention effects and mechanisms are seldom taken into account. In terms of potential solutions to these issues, we advocate: testing isolated effects of behavior change techniques and associated mechanisms of action; routine evaluation of study quality in behavioral intervention research; development of an evidence base of links between behavior change techniques and theory-based constructs involved in mechanisms of action; adoption of fit-for-purpose methods for synthesizing behavioral intervention mechanisms of action; and routine testing of moderators in intervention research. peerReviewed

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/15g1j04f