Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

Behavioral SciencesBehavioral Sciences
PDF
  • Systematic Review
  • Open Access

25 April 2025

24 Pages

Applications of Behavioral Change Theories and Models in Health Promotion Interventions: A Rapid Review

,
,
,
and
Laboratory of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Department of Public and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of West Attica, 115 21 Athens, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Behav. Sci.2025, 15(5), 580;https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15050580
This article belongs to the Special Issue Rapid Reviews for Behavioral Health
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Health behavior change is considered to be central in health promotion, as it can amplify disease prevention and reduce morbidity and mortality at the individual, community, or population level. Behavioral epidemiology, an emerging field of epidemiology, emphasizes the development of integrated, theory-grounded, and evidence-based health promotion interventions. In this context, the present rapid review aims to explore and identify the application of behavioral change theories and models in health promotion interventions, which may address a wide range of topics and may target diverse population groups. The search was conducted in the PubMed and Scopus databases, following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines for scoping reviews. The selected studies were published between 2014 and 2024. A total of forty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of the selected studies employed a combination of behavioral theories and/or models. Some studies were grounded in specific behavioral theories or models, while others developed emerging models. The results of this rapid review suggest that health promotion interventions grounded in behavioral theories/models indicate significant promise. However, further research is needed to pave the way for more effective and efficient health promotion interventions targeting in behavior change.

1. Introduction

Health behavior change is considered to be central in health promotion, as it can amplify disease prevention, reduce morbidity and mortality at individual, community or population level (R. Glasgow et al., 2004; Glanz et al., 2008; Davis et al., 2015; Davidson & Scholz, 2020; O’Connor, 2020; Willmott & Rundle-Thiele, 2021; Michaelsen & Esch, 2022; J. Wang et al., 2025). Specifically, the emerging field of behavioral epidemiology focuses on integrated health promotion interventions that are evidence-based and grounded in specific theories and models of behavior change (Sallis et al., 2000; Rubinelli & Diviani, 2020; Bauch et al., 2012; Raymond, 1989).
The significant relationship between health and behavior was first recognized in ancient Greece. Specifically, Hippocrates, in his work “Airs, Waters, and Places”, stated that “health is defined on the basis of a balance between environmental forces and individual habits” (Tountas, 2009). Nowadays, the connection between health and behavior remains central to the field of health promotion (Ochiai et al., 2021; Rubinelli & Diviani, 2020; Sallis et al., 2000). For example, in 1979, the Healthy People Initiative highlighted the extent to which behaviors and lifestyle patterns influence chronic disease outcomes in the United States (Ochiai et al., 2021). Since then, specialized fields within health sciences have emerged, focusing on the impact of behavior on prevention and health promotion (Helfer et al., 2020; Jenkins, 2003; Ochiai et al., 2021; Ory, 2002; Prochaska et al., 2008; Rubinelli & Diviani, 2020; Sallis et al., 2000).
Health promotion interventions and programs specifically target a wide range of behavioral outcomes, such as preventing and reducing health-risk or unhealthy behaviors, encouraging health-promoting behaviors, improving lifestyles, promoting the effective use of healthcare, and supporting the self-management of diseases (Lippke et al., 2012; Michie et al., 2018b; Noar et al., 2008; Prochaska et al., 2008). To achieve these aims, health promotion interventions utilize behavioral theories and models that offer a theoretical framework for explaining, assessing, predicting, and modifying behaviors (Davis et al., 2015; Kok et al., 2016; McCain, 2015; J. Wang et al., 2025). As Kurt Lewin mentioned, “There is nothing so practical as a good theory” (McCain, 2015), and so it is crucial to understand that the choice of a particular behavioral theory or model, along with the context in which it is applied, can vary and influence the effectiveness, reliability, and validity of the outcomes (Glanz et al., 2008; Glanz & Bishop, 2010; R. Glasgow et al., 2004; Lippke & Ziegelmann, 2008; Noar et al., 2008; Silva et al., 2024).
The evidence base for health promotion targeting in behavior change lacks sufficient information on the feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and evaluation of interventions, making it difficult to replicate these programs across diverse populations, conditions, and settings (Anderson et al., 2004; Becker et al., 2020; Cash et al., 2023; Collins et al., 2013; R. Glasgow et al., 2004; O’Connor, 2020; Prestwich et al., 2015; Rimer et al., 2001; J. Wang et al., 2025). Future efforts should focus on understanding the various behavioral health factors that influence healthy lifestyle patterns, identifying effective ways to implement strategies that promote and motivate health-enhancing behaviors, and reduce health-risk behaviors (Conner & Norman, 2017; Gardner et al., 2023; R. E. Glasgow & Emmons, 2007; Heino et al., 2021; Keller et al., 2021; Lippke et al., 2012; Morabia & Costanza, 2010). In this context, the present rapid review aims to explore and identify the application of behavioral change theories and models in health promotion interventions, which may address a wide range of topics and may target diverse population groups.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Design

A rapid review method was employed to explore and identify the application of behavioral change theories and models in health promotion interventions, which may address a wide range of topics and may target diverse population groups. This rapid review adhered to the necessary methodological strategy to yield sufficient results (Haby et al., 2024). The review process was carried out over eight months. The study was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for scoping reviews, as outlined for the purposes of this study (Haby et al., 2024; Tricco et al., 2018).

2.2. Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

The study selection criteria were based on the PICOS framework (Population, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes, Study Design).
The inclusion criteria were the following:
(a)
Studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals between January 2014 and April 2024;
(b)
Studies with open access availability;
(c)
Studies targeting various populations;
(d)
Studies targeting a wide range of health promotion topics;
(e)
Studies with sufficient and efficient reporting on methodological issues related to the choice and application of behavioral theories and models.
The exclusion criteria included the following:
(a)
Studies not published in peer-reviewed journals;
(b)
Studies not published in English;
(c)
Studies with no open access availability.
In Table 1 the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study characteristics based on the PICOS framework are summarized (da Costa Santos et al., 2007; Garritty et al., 2021).
Table 1. Summary of inclusion and exclusion criteria based on the PICOS framework.

2.3. Information Sources

To identify the publications for this rapid review, the authors searched the recent literature in the PubMed and Scopus databases between 2014 and 2024, οn 25 April 2024.

2.4. Search Strategy and Selection Process

The PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews were applied in the search methodology (Haby et al., 2024; Tricco et al., 2018). The search terms used were as follows: “behavioral theor*” OR “behavior theor*” OR “behaviour theor*” OR “behavior change theor*” OR “behaviour change theor*” OR “behavioral model*” OR “behavior model*” OR “behaviour model*” OR “behavior change model*” OR “behaviour change model*” AND “behavior change” OR “behaviour change” AND “health promotion” AND “study protocol”. Regarding the review strategy, the first and second authors independently screened all titles and abstracts. Subsequently, full texts were reviewed to assess whether they met the inclusion criteria outlined above. Any conflicts that arose during the screening process were discussed between the two authors until a consensus was reached. Moreover, the tables and figures of the present rapid review were uploaded to OSF at the following link: https://osf.io/thwje/ (accessed on 16 April 2025).

2.5. Data Collection Process

The first and the second author collaborated to ensure data completeness and accuracy. Basic socio-demographic data as well as methodological data, related to exposures and outcomes, were extracted from each study. Additionally, the theoretical foundation of each study (e.g., application of a specific behavioral change theory or model) was intensely and thoroughly examined. Key information was extracted from the studies, including the health promotion topic, the study aim and focus, the level of influence according to McLeroy’s Ecological Model (intrapersonal/interpersonal/community level), the level of prevention (primary/secondary/tertiary level), the study design, the target group, the number of participants, and the intervention description (Table 2).
Table 2. A summary of the included studies.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

A total amount of 327 abstracts were retrieved from both databases, specifically 46 records from PubMed and 281 from Scopus. Eight of these duplicates (n = 8) were excluded. The remaining 319 records were screened for eligibility based on the abstract, and 220 records were excluded since they did not fulfill the inclusion criteria: specifically, they did not provide sufficient and efficient reporting on methodological issues related to the choice and application of behavioral theories/models. Therefore, the 99 remaining records were screened for the full text, and 54 records were excluded due to the fact they did not meet the inclusion criteria: specifically, 44 records were not based on a specific behavioral change theory or model, three records concerned therapeutic methods, three records were at preliminary stage, two records had complex methodological approach which was considered to be beyond the scope of the present study, one record concerned only process evaluation, and one record concerned the development of a manual. Finally, 45 records were included in the present rapid review (Figure 1).
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart search strategy.

3.2. Study Design

Forty (88.88%) of the selected studies were study protocols for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (Abidi et al., 2016; Abildsnes et al., 2017; Ara et al., 2019; Barrett et al., 2018; Bestle et al., 2020; Caudwell et al., 2016; C. Chen et al., 2020; W. Chen et al., 2016; Cleary et al., 2014; Conroy, 2022; Delea et al., 2019; Demetriou & Bachner, 2019; Dobson et al., 2016; Ek et al., 2018; Frost et al., 2022; Gardner et al., 2014; Godoy-Izquierdo et al., 2023; Gul et al., 2019; Haug et al., 2014; Jolly et al., 2018; Kamal et al., 2016; Krämer et al., 2022; Larkin et al., 2017; Larsen et al., 2020; Lubans et al., 2016; Lyon et al., 2024; Mâsse et al., 2020; Mat Said et al., 2021; Murawski et al., 2018; Nakamura et al., 2017; Pakpour et al., 2022; Patel et al., 2019; Perry et al., 2023; Pond et al., 2019; Rashid et al., 2022; Sanchez et al., 2024; Ting et al., 2018; Wallbank et al., 2019; K. Wang et al., 2022; Yoong et al., 2022). The remaining studies consisted of study protocols for: four controlled trials (8.88%), (Howlett et al., 2017; Lackinger et al., 2015; Latomme et al., 2021; Stea et al., 2016), and one single group intervention study (2.22%), (Freyer-Adam et al., 2022).

3.3. Behavioral Change Theory or Model

The use of a combination of behavioral change theories or models was more frequent (n = 28, 62.22%), (Abidi et al., 2016; Abildsnes et al., 2017; Caudwell et al., 2016; C. Chen et al., 2020; W. Chen et al., 2016; Conroy, 2022; Delea et al., 2019; Demetriou & Bachner, 2019; Ek et al., 2018; Gardner et al., 2014; Howlett et al., 2017; Jolly et al., 2018; Kamal et al., 2016; Larsen et al., 2020; Latomme et al., 2021; Lubans et al., 2016; Lyon et al., 2024; Mâsse et al., 2020; Mat Said et al., 2021; Nakamura et al., 2017; Patel et al., 2019; Perry et al., 2023; Pond et al., 2019; Rashid et al., 2022; Sanchez et al., 2024; Stea et al., 2016; Wallbank et al., 2019; Yoong et al., 2022).
Additionally, a specific behavioral change theory or model was applied as follows:
(a)
Theory of Planned Behavior (n = 3, 6.66%), (Cleary et al., 2014; Larkin et al., 2017; Ting et al., 2018);
(b)
Social Cognitive Theory (n = 3, 6.66%), (Barrett et al., 2018; Bestle et al., 2020; Murawski et al., 2018);
(c)
Health Action Process Model (n = 3, 6.66%), (Godoy-Izquierdo et al., 2023; Haug et al., 2014; Krämer et al., 2022);
(d)
Transtheoretical Model (n = 2, 4.44%), (Freyer-Adam et al., 2022; Pakpour et al., 2022);
(e)
Emerging Models (n = 2, 4.44%), (Gul et al., 2019; Lackinger et al., 2015);
(f)
Health Belief Model (n = 1, 2.22%), (K. Wang et al., 2022);
(g)
Capability, Opportunity, Motivation Model (COM-B Model) (n = 1, 2.22%), (Frost et al., 2022);
(h)
Behavior Change Communication (n = 1, 2.22%), (Ara et al., 2019);
(i)
Behavior Change Techniques (n = 1, 2.22%), (Dobson et al., 2016).

3.4. Health Promotion Topics

The behavioral change theories or models were applied within health promotion interventions addressing a wide range of health promotion topics, as follows:
(a)
Main Risk Factors (n = 27, 60%):
-
Physical activity (Barrett et al., 2018; C. Chen et al., 2020; Demetriou & Bachner, 2019; Ek et al., 2018; Gardner et al., 2014; Godoy-Izquierdo et al., 2023; Howlett et al., 2017; Lackinger et al., 2015; Larkin et al., 2017; Larsen et al., 2020; Latomme et al., 2021; Lubans et al., 2016; Murawski et al., 2018; Perry et al., 2023; Wallbank et al., 2019; Yoong et al., 2022);
-
Nutrition (Ara et al., 2019; Bestle et al., 2020; Jolly et al., 2018; Nakamura et al., 2017; Patel et al., 2019; Pond et al., 2019);
-
Physical activity and nutrition (Abildsnes et al., 2017);
-
Alcohol use (Abidi et al., 2016; Caudwell et al., 2016);
-
Alcohol and tobacco use (Haug et al., 2014);
-
Health behaviors (tobacco use, alcohol use, physical activity, nutrition) (Freyer-Adam et al., 2022).
(b)
Prevention of Noncommunicable Diseases (n = 13, 28.88%):
-
Diabetes (Dobson et al., 2016; Ting et al., 2018);
-
Cardiovascular disease (Kamal et al., 2016; Mat Said et al., 2021; Sanchez et al., 2024);
-
Weight management/obesity (Mâsse et al., 2020; Rashid et al., 2022; Stea et al., 2016);
-
Frailty (Frost et al., 2022);
-
Sun protection (Cleary et al., 2014);
-
Postpartum contraception (Gul et al., 2019);
-
Oral health (K. Wang et al., 2022);
-
Protective behavior in the workplace (W. Chen et al., 2016).
(c)
Mental Health Prevention and Promotion (n = 3, 6.66%):
-
Social, emotional, and behavioral development of school students (Lyon et al., 2024);
-
Depression (Krämer et al., 2022);
-
Internet gaming disorder (Pakpour et al., 2022).
(d)
Prevention of Communicable Diseases (n = 2, 4.44%):
-
Sanitation (Delea et al., 2019);
-
COVID-19 (Conroy, 2022).

3.5. The Levels of Influence

The application of behavioral change theories or models in relation to levels of influence, based on McLeroy’s Socio-Ecological model, is presented as follows:
(a)
Intrapersonal level (n = 27, 60%) (Abidi et al., 2016; Abildsnes et al., 2017; Ara et al., 2019; Caudwell et al., 2016; Cleary et al., 2014; Dobson et al., 2016; Ek et al., 2018; Freyer-Adam et al., 2022; Frost et al., 2022; Gardner et al., 2014; Godoy-Izquierdo et al., 2023; Gul et al., 2019; Haug et al., 2014; Howlett et al., 2017; Jolly et al., 2018; Lackinger et al., 2015; Larkin et al., 2017; Latomme et al., 2021; Lyon et al., 2024; Pakpour et al., 2022; Patel et al., 2019; Pond et al., 2019; Ting et al., 2018; Wallbank et al., 2019; K. Wang et al., 2022; Yoong et al., 2022);
(b)
Intrapersonal and interpersonal levels (n = 9, 20%) (W. Chen et al., 2016; Conroy, 2022; Demetriou & Bachner, 2019; Kamal et al., 2016; Larsen et al., 2020; Mâsse et al., 2020; Mat Said et al., 2021; Nakamura et al., 2017; Rashid et al., 2022);
(c)
Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and community levels (n = 5, 11.11%) (C. Chen et al., 2020; Delea et al., 2019; Lubans et al., 2016; Perry et al., 2023; Stea et al., 2016);
(d)
Interpersonal level (n = 3, 6.66%) (Barrett et al., 2018; Bestle et al., 2020; Murawski et al., 2018);
(e)
Intrapersonal and community levels (n = 1, 2.22%) (Sanchez et al., 2024).

3.6. The Levels of Prevention

The application of behavioral change theories or models across prevention levels, is presented as follows:
(a)
Primary prevention (n = 27, 60%) (Barrett et al., 2018; Bestle et al., 2020; C. Chen et al., 2020; Cleary et al., 2014; Conroy, 2022; Demetriou & Bachner, 2019; Ek et al., 2018; Freyer-Adam et al., 2022; Frost et al., 2022; Godoy-Izquierdo et al., 2023; Gul et al., 2019; Jolly et al., 2018; Lackinger et al., 2015; Larsen et al., 2020; Latomme et al., 2021; Lubans et al., 2016; Lyon et al., 2024; Nakamura et al., 2017; Patel et al., 2019; Perry et al., 2023; Pond et al., 2019; Rashid et al., 2022; Sanchez et al., 2024; Stea et al., 2016; Wallbank et al., 2019; K. Wang et al., 2022; Yoong et al., 2022);
(b)
Secondary prevention (n = 9, 20%) (Abidi et al., 2016; Ara et al., 2019; Caudwell et al., 2016; W. Chen et al., 2016; Delea et al., 2019; Frost et al., 2022; Howlett et al., 2017; Mat Said et al., 2021; Murawski et al., 2018);
(c)
Tertiary prevention (n = 9, 20%) (Dobson et al., 2016; Haug et al., 2014; Kamal et al., 2016; Krämer et al., 2022; Larkin et al., 2017; Mâsse et al., 2020; Pakpour et al., 2022; Stea et al., 2016; Ting et al., 2018).

4. Discussion

Health behavior change plays a critical role in promoting and enhancing the overall health and well-being of individuals and communities (Anderson et al., 2004; Glanz & Bishop, 2010; Lippke et al., 2012; Michie et al., 2018b; Noar et al., 2008; Ory, 2002; Rimer et al., 2001; Zhang et al., 2024). It is a key contributor to disease prevention, significantly reducing morbidity and mortality by targeting and modifying health-related behaviors (Caron et al., 2023; Keller et al., 2021; Lippke et al., 2012; Rimer et al., 2001; Rubinelli & Diviani, 2020; Zhang et al., 2024). Encouraging healthier behavior patterns lies at the core of many health promotion interventions, programs, and policies aimed at fostering a healthier lifestyle and improving individual well-being (Bestle et al., 2020; Caron et al., 2023; C. Chen et al., 2020; Ek et al., 2018; Gul et al., 2019; Latomme et al., 2021; Lippke et al., 2012; Michie et al., 2018b; Patel et al., 2019; Steinmetz et al., 2016; K. Wang et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2024).Health promotion interventions often use and incorporate specific behavioral theories and models, since these provide essential theoretical frameworks to understand, explain, predict, and influence health-related behaviors (Glanz & Bishop, 2010; Hagger & Weed, 2019; Lippke et al., 2012; Paek et al., 2010; Prestwich et al., 2015; Rimer et al., 2001; Silva et al., 2024; Steinmetz et al., 2016; J. Wang et al., 2025). Over the past few decades, the scientific literature has advanced health promotion strategies and highlighted the importance of applying effective behavioral change theories and models to achieve positive health outcomes (Anderson et al., 2004; Caron et al., 2023, 2023; Fishbein & Yzer, 2003; Hagger & Weed, 2019; Michie et al., 2018b; Morabia & Costanza, 2010; Steinmetz et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2024). Furthermore, recent research has increasingly focused on translating health promotion findings—particularly those targeting behavior change—into practice (Glanz et al., 2008a; Morabia & Costanza, 2010; Rimer et al., 2001; Steinmetz et al., 2016; Tate et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2024). While health promotion interventions targeting behavior change have proven rather effective, there remains a need for more systematic, comprehensive, transparent, and sustainable research efforts (Glanz & Bishop, 2010; R. Glasgow et al., 2004; Hagger & Weed, 2019; Michie et al., 2018a; Morabia & Costanza, 2010).
Understanding why some health promotion interventions succeed while others fall short is essential for making better-informed intervention decisions targeting health-related behaviors (Anderson et al., 2004; R. E. Glasgow & Emmons, 2007; Michie et al., 2018a; Michie & Johnston, 2012). To deepen this understanding, the theoretical components that predict behavior change must be more clearly defined, particularly in relation to the motivations and intentions driving such change (Lippke & Ziegelmann, 2008). Moreover, theory-based interventions should systematically derive specific behavior change techniques from the underlying theory and apply them in practice to achieve the intended outcomes effectively (Lippke & Ziegelmann, 2008).
This rapid review identifies health promotion interventions grounded in behavioral change theories and models, targeting diverse populations and addressing a wide range of topics. It provides a comprehensive overview of the evolving field of health promotion interventions focused on behavior change research and practice. Specifically, it emphasizes the importance of theoretical foundations in behavior change, particularly regarding the implementation and sustainability of health promotion interventions (Michie et al., 2018b; Perry et al., 2023; Sanchez et al., 2024; Ting et al., 2018).
The study revealed that combining behavioral change theories or models was more common than applying them individually (Abidi et al., 2016; Abildsnes et al., 2017; Caudwell et al., 2016; C. Chen et al., 2020; W. Chen et al., 2016; Conroy, 2022; Delea et al., 2019; Demetriou & Bachner, 2019; Ek et al., 2018; Gardner et al., 2014; Howlett et al., 2017; Jolly et al., 2018; Kamal et al., 2016; Larsen et al., 2020; Latomme et al., 2021; Lubans et al., 2016; Lyon et al., 2024; Mâsse et al., 2020; Mat Said et al., 2021; Nakamura et al., 2017; Patel et al., 2019; Perry et al., 2023; Pond et al., 2019; Rashid et al., 2022; Sanchez et al., 2024; Stea et al., 2016; Wallbank et al., 2019; Yoong et al., 2022). Studies confirm that integrating multiple behavior change theories and models is commonly employed in health promotion interventions (Bohlen et al., 2020; Prestwich et al., 2015; Richards & Johnson, 2014). However, it remains to be seen how effective the application of multiple theories and models will be in the future (Diep et al., 2014; Gourlan et al., 2016; Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2014; Pound & Campbell, 2015; Prestwich et al., 2015).
Regarding the individual application of behavioral change theories or models, the Theory of Planned Behavior (Cleary et al., 2014; Larkin et al., 2017; Ting et al., 2018), the Social Cognitive Theory (Barrett et al., 2018; Bestle et al., 2020; Murawski et al., 2018), and the Health Action Process Model (Godoy-Izquierdo et al., 2023; Haug et al., 2014; Krämer et al., 2022) were used most frequently. Less commonly applied were the Transtheoretical Model (Freyer-Adam et al., 2022; Pakpour et al., 2022), Emerging Models (Gul et al., 2019; Lackinger et al., 2015), the Health Belief Model (K. Wang et al., 2022), the COM-B Model, (Frost et al., 2022), the Behavior Change Communication (Ara et al., 2019), and Behavior Change Techniques (Dobson et al., 2016). A recent systematic review identified the Health Belief Model, Theory of Planned Behavior, and Protection Motivation Theory as the most commonly cited models (Weston et al., 2020).
Furthermore, this rapid review encompassed a wide range of health promotion topics to which these theories or models were applied, including key categories such as main risk factors (e.g., physical activity, nutrition, combined physical activity and nutrition, alcohol use, and alcohol and tobacco use), prevention of non-communicable diseases, mental health prevention and promotion, and prevention of communicable diseases. Health promotion interventions often utilize a variety of theoretical frameworks to effectively address diverse health topics (Bully et al., 2015; Panagopoulou et al., 2011; Prochaska et al., 2008; J. Wang et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2024).
Regarding the application of behavioral change theories or models in terms of levels of influence, based on McLeroy’s Socio-Ecological Model (McLeroy et al., 1988), it was found that most of the applied behavioral change theories or models targeted the intrapersonal level of influence. In terms of prevention levels, the majority of studies focused on primary prevention, while secondary and tertiary prevention were less frequently targeted (Fishbein & Yzer, 2003). Health promotion interventions using behavioral change theories or models, primarily targeting the individual level, aim to modify personal behaviors and perceptions to improve health outcomes (Becker et al., 2020; Davis et al., 2015, 2015; Rubinelli & Diviani, 2020; J. Wang et al., 2025). The literature suggests that exploring the boundaries of these theories, expanding research methods, and testing them with relevant outcomes could facilitate their translation to the interpersonal and community levels (Davis et al., 2015; Lippke & Ziegelmann, 2008; Mermelstein & Revenson, 2013; J. Wang et al., 2025).
In conclusion, the findings emphasize the importance of multi-level approaches to health promotion interventions, which could propel the field of behavior change in new directions and help bridge the gap between research and practice (R. Glasgow et al., 2004; Hagger & Weed, 2019; Michie et al., 2018b; J. Wang et al., 2025). This study provides valuable insights for researchers and practitioners in designing, implementing, and evaluating theory-driven interventions moving forward (R. Glasgow et al., 2004; Steinmetz et al., 2016; Willmott & Rundle-Thiele, 2021).

5. Strengths and Limitations of the Study

Although the rapid review methodology employed in this study offers several advantages, it also has certain limitations. One of the main advantages of this rapid review is its ability to gather significant information on health promotion interventions. Summarizing and synthesizing recent relevant literature is crucial for understanding the latest efforts and evidence surrounding these interventions. Additionally, this rapid review enabled a focused investigation into the field, highlighting both advancements and challenges in the existing literature. It also addressed the increasing methodological rigor in health promotion interventions and the use of theory-based approaches in these efforts.
Regarding the limitations of the present rapid review, it is important to note that, due to the nature of this methodology, a comprehensive analysis of all relevant aspects of the subject was not possible. Additionally, the rapid review methodology may have limitations in terms of the depth of analysis of health promotion interventions targeting behavior change. To strengthen the generalizability, robustness, and effectiveness of such interventions, further studies are needed. In light of these limitations, additional research in the field of health promotion targeting behavior change is essential. This will help bridge the gap between health promotion research and practice, offering valuable insights for public health policy decisions. Ultimately, this rapid review provides a focused and efficient investigation of the existing literature, highlighting key insights into the importance of applying behavioral change theories and models in health promotion interventions.

6. Conclusions

This study employed a rapid review methodology to inform future research efforts by exploring the application of behavioral change theories and models in health promotion interventions, which address a wide range of topics and target diverse populations. Overall, the findings highlight the urgent need for a more comprehensive and systematic investigation into the widespread application of health promotion interventions targeting behavior change in practice. Moving forward, future research should focus on the long-term potential of integrating these findings into national health policies for diverse populations. In summary, there is a critical need to bridge the gap between behavioral health promotion research and its practice, ensuring the translation of research into practice. To achieve this, comprehensive, theory-based, and evidence-driven efforts are essential to enhance the efficacy, effectiveness, and widespread dissemination of these studies.

Author Contributions

All the authors contributed to the methodology and writing—review and editing. Conceptualization, A.-D.K. and A.L.; software, A.-D.K., A.M., E.S. and A.L.; formal analysis, A.-D.K., A.B. and A.L.; investigation, A.-D.K. and A.L.; resources, A.-D.K., A.B. and A.L.; data curation, A.-D.K., A.M., E.S. and A.L.; writing—original draft preparation, A.-D.K.; visualization, A.-D.K.; supervision, A.L.; project administration, A.L.; funding acquisition, A.-D.K. and A.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the Special Account for Research Grants of the University of West Attica. 9MBY46M9JH-57J & RCGR46M9JH-Z5H.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Abidi, L., Oenema, A., Candel, M., & van de Mheen, D. (2016). A theory-based implementation program for alcohol screening and brief intervention (ASBI) in general practices: Planned development and study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 51, 78–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Abildsnes, E., Meland, E., Mildestvedt, T., Stea, T. H., Berntsen, S., & Samdal, G. B. (2017). The Norwegian Healthy Life Study: Protocol for a pragmatic RCT with longitudinal follow-up on physical activity and diet for adults. BMC Public Health, 17(1), 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Anderson, N. B., Bulatao, R. A., Cohen, B., & National Research Council (US) Panel on Race E. (2004). Behavioral health interventions: What works and why? In Critical perspectives on racial and ethnic differences in health in late life. National Academies Press (US). Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25527/ (accessed on 23 September 2024).
  4. Ara, G., Sanin, K. I., Khanam, M., Alam Sarker, S., Khan, S. S., Rifat, M., Chowdhury, I. A., Askari, S., Afsana, K., & Ahmed, T. (2019). Study protocol to assess the impact of an integrated nutrition intervention on the growth and development of children under two in rural Bangladesh. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  5. Barrett, E., Gillespie, P., Newell, J., & Casey, D. (2018). Feasibility of a physical activity programme embedded into the daily lives of older adults living in nursing homes: Protocol for a randomised controlled pilot feasibility study. Trials, 19(1), 461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  6. Bauch, C., d’Onofrio, A., & Manfredi, P. (2012). Behavioral Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases: An Overview. In Modeling the interplay between human behavior and the spread of infectious diseases (pp. 1–19). Springer Science+Business. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Becker, C. M., Sewell, K., Bian, H., & Lee, J. G. L. (2020). Limited improvements in health behaviors suggest need to review approaches to health promotion: A repeated, cross-sectional study. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 16(4), 521–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  8. Bestle, S. M. S., Christensen, B. J., Trolle, E., Biltoft-Jensen, A. P., Matthiessen, J., Gibbons, S. J., Ersbøll, B. K., & Lassen, A. D. (2020). Reducing young schoolchildren’s intake of sugar-rich food and drinks: Study protocol and intervention design for “are you too sweet?” A multicomponent 3.5-month cluster randomised family-based intervention study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(24), 9580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Bohlen, L. C., Michie, S., de Bruin, M., Rothman, A. J., Kelly, M. P., Groarke, H. N. K., Carey, R. N., Hale, J., & Johnston, M. (2020). Do combinations of behavior change techniques that occur frequently in interventions reflect underlying theory? Annals of Behavioral Medicine: A Publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, 54(11), 827–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Bully, P., Sánchez, Á., Zabaleta-del-Olmo, E., Pombo, H., & Grandes, G. (2015). Evidence from interventions based on theoretical models for lifestyle modification (physical activity, diet, alcohol and tobacco use) in primary care settings: A systematic review. Preventive Medicine, 76, S76–S93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Caron, R. M., Noel, K., Reed, R. N., Sibel, J., & Smith, H. J. (2023). Health promotion, health protection, and disease prevention: Challenges and opportunities in a dynamic landscape. AJPM Focus, 3(1), 100167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Cash, P., Wrobel, A., Maier, A., & Hansen, J. P. (2023). Understanding long-term behaviour change techniques: A mixed methods study. Journal of Engineering Design, 34(5–6), 383–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Caudwell, K. M., Mullan, B. A., & Hagger, M. S. (2016). Combining motivational and volitional approaches to reducing excessive alcohol consumption in pre-drinkers: A theory-based intervention protocol. BMC Public Health, 16(1), 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  14. Chen, C., Dieterich, A. V., Koh, J. J. E., Akksilp, K., Tong, E. H., Budtarad, N., Müller, A. M., Anothaisintawee, T., Tai, B. C., Rattanavipapong, W., Isaranuwatchai, W., Rouyard, T., Nakamura, R., Müller-Riemenschneider, F., & Teerawattananon, Y. (2020). The physical activity at work (PAW) study protocol: A cluster randomised trial of a multicomponent short-break intervention to reduce sitting time and increase physical activity among office workers in Thailand. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Chen, W., Li, T., Zou, G., Li, X., Shi, L., Feng, S., Shi, J., Zhou, F., Han, S., & Ling, L. (2016). Study protocol: A cluster randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a multi-pronged behavioural intervention to improve use of personal protective equipment among migrant workers exposed to organic solvents in small and medium-sized enterprises. BMC Public Health, 16(1), 580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Cleary, C. M., White, K. M., Young, R. M., Hawkes, A. L., Leske, S., Starfelt, L. C., & Wihardjo, K. (2014). Study protocol: A randomised controlled trial of a theory-based online intervention to improve sun safety among Australian adults. BMC Cancer, 14(1), 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Collins, L. M., MacKinnon, D. P., & Reeve, B. B. (2013). Some methodological considerations in theory-based health behavior research. Health Psychology: Official Journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 32(5), 586–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  18. Conner, M., & Norman, P. (2017). Health behaviour: Current issues and challenges. Psychology & Health, 32(8), 895–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Conroy, D. (2022). Mental imagery interventions to promote face covering use among UK university students and employees during the COVID-19 pandemic: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 23(1), 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. da Costa Santos, C. M., de Mattos Pimenta, C. A., & Nobre, M. R. C. (2007). The PICO strategy for the research question construction and evidence search. Revista Latino-Americana De Enfermagem, 15(3), 508–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Davidson, K. W., & Scholz, U. (2020). Understanding and predicting health behaviour change: A contemporary view through the lenses of meta-reviews. Health Psychology Review, 14(1), 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Davis, R., Campbell, R., Hildon, Z., Hobbs, L., & Michie, S. (2015). Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: A scoping review. Health Psychology Review, 9(3), 323–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Delea, M. G., Snyder, J. S., Belew, M., Caruso, B. A., Garn, J. V., Sclar, G. D., Woreta, M., Zewudie, K., Gebremariam, A., & Freeman, M. C. (2019). Design of a parallel cluster-randomized trial assessing the impact of a demand-side sanitation and hygiene intervention on sustained behavior change and mental well-being in rural and peri-urban Amhara, Ethiopia: Andilaye study protocol. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Demetriou, Y., & Bachner, J. (2019). A school-based intervention based on self-determination theory to promote girls’ physical activity: Study protocol of the CReActivity cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Diep, C. S., Chen, T.-A., Davies, V. F., Baranowski, J. C., & Baranowski, T. (2014). Influence of behavioral theory on fruit and vegetable intervention effectiveness among children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 46(6), 506–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  26. Dobson, R., Whittaker, R., Jiang, Y., Shepherd, M., Maddison, R., Carter, K., Cutfield, R., McNamara, C., Khanolkar, M., & Murphy, R. (2016). Text message-based diabetes self-management support (SMS4BG): Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials, 17(1), 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  27. Ek, A., Alexandrou, C., Delisle Nyström, C., Direito, A., Eriksson, U., Hammar, U., Henriksson, P., Maddison, R., Trolle Lagerros, Y., & Löf, M. (2018). The Smart City Active Mobile Phone Intervention (SCAMPI) study to promote physical activity through active transportation in healthy adults: A study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Fishbein, M., & Yzer, M. C. (2003). Using Theory to Design Effective Health Behavior Interventions. Communication Theory, 13(2), 164–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Freyer-Adam, J., Krolo, F., Tiede, A., Goeze, C., Sadewasser, K., Spielmann, M., Krause, K., & John, U. (2022). Proactive automatised lifestyle intervention (PAL) in general hospital patients: Study protocol of a single-group trial. BMJ Open, 12(9), e065136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Frost, R., Avgerinou, C., Goodman, C., Clegg, A., Hopkins, J., Gould, R. L., Gardner, B., Marston, L., Hunter, R., Manthorpe, J., Cooper, C., Skelton, D. A., Drennan, V. M., Logan, P., & Walters, K. (2022). Clinical and cost-effectiveness of a personalised health promotion intervention enabling independence in older people with mild frailty (‘HomeHealth’) compared to treatment as usual: Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMC Geriatrics, 22(1), 485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Gardner, B., Arden, M. A., Brown, D., Eves, F. F., Green, J., Hamilton, K., Hankonen, N., Inauen, J., Keller, J., Kwasnicka, D., Labudek, S., Marien, H., Masaryk, R., McCleary, N., Mullan, B. A., Neter, E., Orbell, S., Potthoff, S., & Lally, P. (2023). Developing habit-based health behaviour change interventions: Twenty-one questions to guide future research. Psychology & Health, 38(4), 518–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Gardner, B., Thuné-Boyle, I., Iliffe, S., Fox, K. R., Jefferis, B. J., Hamer, M., Tyler, N., & Wardle, J. (2014). “On Your Feet to Earn Your Seat”, a habit-based intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour in older adults: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 15, 368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., King, V. J., Hamel, C., Kamel, C., Affengruber, L., & Stevens, A. (2021). Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 130, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  34. Glanz, K., & Bishop, D. B. (2010). The role of behavioral science theory in development and implementation of public health interventions. Annual Review of Public Health, 31, 399–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Glanz, K., Rimer, B. K., & Viswanath, K. (Eds.). (2008). Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (4th ed., Vol. xxxiii, p. 552). Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  36. Glasgow, R. E., & Emmons, K. M. (2007). How can we increase translation of research into practice? Types of evidence needed. Annual Review of Public Health, 28, 413–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Glasgow, R., Klesges, L., Dzewaltowski, D., Bull, S., & Estabrooks, P. (2004). The future of health behavior change research: What is needed to improve translation of research into health promotion practice? Annals of Behavioral Medicine: A Publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, 27, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Godoy-Izquierdo, D., Lara-Moreno, R., Ogallar-Blanco, A., González, J., de Teresa, C., & Mendoza, N. (2023). The AHAWOMEN project: Study protocol of a multi-design research for exploring HAPA predictors of exercise in postmenopausal women. BMC Psychology, 11(1), 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  39. Gourlan, M., Bernard, P., Bortolon, C., Romain, A. J., Lareyre, O., Carayol, M., Ninot, G., & Boiché, J. (2016). Efficacy of theory-based interventions to promote physical activity. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Health Psychology Review, 10(1), 50–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  40. Gul, X., Hameed, W., Hussain, S., Sheikh, I., & Siddiqui, J.-U.-R. (2019). A study protocol for an mHealth, multi-centre randomized control trial to promote use of postpartum contraception amongst rural women in Punjab, Pakistan. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 19(1), 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Haby, M. M., Barreto, J. O. M., Kim, J. Y. H., Peiris, S., Mansilla, C., Torres, M., Guerrero-Magaña, D. E., & Reveiz, L. (2024). What are the best methods for rapid reviews of the research evidence? A systematic review of reviews and primary studies. Research Synthesis Methods, 15(1), 2–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  42. Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2014). An integrated behavior change model for physical activity. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 42(2), 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. Hagger, M. S., & Weed, M. (2019). DEBATE: Do interventions based on behavioral theory work in the real world? International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 16(1), 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. Haug, S., Castro, R. P., Filler, A., Kowatsch, T., Fleisch, E., & Schaub, M. P. (2014). Efficacy of an internet and SMS-based integrated smoking cessation and alcohol intervention for smoking cessation in young people: Study protocol of a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Heino, M. T. J., Knittle, K., Noone, C., Hasselman, F., & Hankonen, N. (2021). Studying behaviour change mechanisms under complexity. Behavioral Sciences, 11(5), 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Helfer, T., Faeh, D., Luijckx, E., Frey, S., Berg, A., & Peter, K. (2020). The connection between health promotion, prevention, and psychosocial health: An innovative action model. The Open Public Health Journal, 13, 850–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Howlett, N., Jones, A., Bain, L., & Chater, A. (2017). How effective is community physical activity promotion in areas of deprivation for inactive adults with cardiovascular disease risk and/or mental health concerns? Study protocol for a pragmatic observational evaluation of the “Active Herts” physical activity programme. BMJ Open, 7(11), e017783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  48. Jenkins, C. D. (2003). Building better health: A handbook of behavioral change. Pan American Health Organization, Pan American Sanitary Bureau, Regional Office of the World Health Organization. [Google Scholar]
  49. Jolly, K., Ingram, J., Clarke, J., Johnson, D., Trickey, H., Thomson, G., Dombrowski, S. U., Sitch, A., Dykes, F., Feltham, M. G., Darwent, K., MacArthur, C., Roberts, T., & Hoddinott, P. (2018). Protocol for a feasibility trial for improving breast feeding initiation and continuation: Assets-based infant feeding help before and after birth (ABA). BMJ Open, 8(1), e019142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  50. Kamal, A. K., Muqeet, A., Farhat, K., Khalid, W., Jamil, A., Gowani, A., Muhammad, A. A., Zaidi, F., Khan, D., Elahi, T., Sharif, S., Raz, S., Zafar, T., Bokhari, S. S., Rahman, N., Sultan, F. A. T., Sayani, S., & Virani, S. S. (2016). Using a tailored health information technology-driven intervention to improve health literacy and medication adherence in a Pakistani population with vascular disease (Talking Rx)—Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 17(1), 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  51. Keller, C., Ferrer, R. A., King, R. B., & Collier, E. (2021). Future directions of the national institutes of health science of behavior change program. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 11(9), 1795–1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Kok, G., Gottlieb, N. H., Peters, G.-J. Y., Mullen, P. D., Parcel, G. S., Ruiter, R. A. C., Fernández, M. E., Markham, C., & Bartholomew, L. K. (2016). A taxonomy of behaviour change methods: An Intervention Mapping approach. Health Psychology Review, 10(3), 297–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Krämer, L. V., Mueller-Weinitschke, C., Zeiss, T., Baumeister, H., Ebert, D. D., & Bengel, J. (2022). Effectiveness of a web-based behavioural activation intervention for individuals with depression based on the Health Action Process Approach: Protocol for a randomised controlled trial with a 6-month follow-up. BMJ Open, 12(1), e054775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Lackinger, C., Strehn, A., Dorner, T. E., Niebauer, J., & Titze, S. (2015). Health resorts as gateways for regional, standardised, sports club based exercise programmes to increase the weekly time of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity: Study protocol. BMC Public Health, 15, 1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Larkin, L., Gallagher, S., Fraser, A., & Kennedy, N. (2017). Community-based intervention to promote physical activity in rheumatoid arthritis (CIPPA-RA): A study protocol for a pilot randomised control trial. Rheumatology International, 37(12), 2095–2103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  56. Larsen, R. T., Korfitsen, C. B., Juhl, C. B., Andersen, H. B., Christensen, J., & Langberg, H. (2020). The MIPAM trial: A 12-week intervention with motivational interviewing and physical activity monitoring to enhance the daily amount of physical activity in community-dwelling older adults—A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Geriatrics, 20(1), 412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  57. Latomme, J., Morgan, P. J., De Craemer, M., Brondeel, R., Verloigne, M., & Cardon, G. (2021). A family-based lifestyle intervention focusing on fathers and their children using co-creation: Study protocol of the run daddy run intervention. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  58. Lippke, S., Nigg, C. R., & Maddock, J. E. (2012). Health-promoting and health-risk behaviors: Theory-driven analyses of multiple health behavior change in three international samples. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 19(1), 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  59. Lippke, S., & Ziegelmann, J. P. (2008). Theory-Based Health Behavior Change: Developing, Testing, and Applying Theories for Evidence-Based Interventions. Applied Psychology, 57(4), 698–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  60. Lubans, D. R., Smith, J. J., Peralta, L. R., Plotnikoff, R. C., Okely, A. D., Salmon, J., Eather, N., Dewar, D. L., Kennedy, S., Lonsdale, C., Hilland, T. A., Estabrooks, P., Finn, T. L., Pollock, E., & Morgan, P. J. (2016). A school-based intervention incorporating smartphone technology to improve health-related fitness among adolescents: Rationale and study protocol for the NEAT and ATLAS 2.0 cluster randomised controlled trial and dissemination study. BMJ Open, 6(6), e010448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  61. Lyon, A. R., Cook, C. R., Larson, M., Hugh, M. L., Dopp, A., Hamlin, C., Reinke, P., Bose, M., Law, A., Goosey, R., Goerdt, A., Morrell, N., Wackerle-Hollman, A., & Pullmann, M. D. (2024). Protocol for a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation trial of a pragmatic individual-level implementation strategy for supporting school-based prevention programming. Implementation Science, 19(1), 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  62. Mat Said, Z., Musa, K. I., Tengku Ismail, T. A., Abdul Hamid, A., Sahathevan, R., Abdul Aziz, Z., & Feigin, V. (2021). The Effectiveness of stroke riskometerTM in improving stroke risk awareness in malaysia: A study protocol of a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Neuroepidemiology, 55(6), 436–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  63. Mâsse, L. C., Vlaar, J., Macdonald, J., Bradbury, J., Warshawski, T., Buckler, E. J., Hamilton, J., Ho, J., Buchholz, A., Morrison, K. M., & Ball, G. D. C. (2020). Aim2Be mHealth intervention for children with overweight and obesity: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 21(1), 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  64. McCain, K. W. (2015). “Nothing as practical as a good theory” Does Lewin’s Maxim still have salience in the applied social sciences? Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 52(1), 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  65. McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15(4), 351–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  66. Mermelstein, R. J., & Revenson, T. A. (2013). Applying theory across settings, behaviors and populations: Translational challenges and opportunities. Health Psychology: Official Journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 32(5), 592–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  67. Michaelsen, M. M., & Esch, T. (2022). Functional mechanisms of health behavior change techniques: A conceptual review. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 725644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  68. Michie, S., Carey, R. N., Johnston, M., Rothman, A. J., De Bruin, M., Kelly, M. P., & Connell, L. E. (2018a). From theory-inspired to theory-based interventions: A protocol for developing and testing a methodology for linking behaviour change techniques to theoretical mechanisms of action. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 52(6), 501–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  69. Michie, S., & Johnston, M. (2012). Theories and techniques of behaviour change: Developing a cumulative science of behaviour change. Health Psychology Review, 6(1), 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  70. Michie, S., West, R., Sheals, K., & Godinho, C. A. (2018b). Evaluating the effectiveness of behavior change techniques in health-related behavior: A scoping review of methods used. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 8(2), 212–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  71. Morabia, A., & Costanza, M. C. (2010). Multiple health behavior change interventions: Tell us what you see. Preventive Medicine, 50(1–2), 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  72. Murawski, B., Plotnikoff, R. C., Rayward, A. T., Vandelanotte, C., Brown, W. J., & Duncan, M. J. (2018). Randomised controlled trial using a theory-based m-health intervention to improve physical activity and sleep health in adults: The Synergy Study protocol. BMJ Open, 8(2), e018997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  73. Nakamura, S., Inayama, T., & Arao, T. (2017a). A randomized-controlled trial focusing on socio-economic status for promoting vegetable intake among adults using a web-based nutrition intervention programme: Study protocol. BMC Public Health, 17(1), 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  74. Noar, S. M., Chabot, M., & Zimmerman, R. S. (2008). Applying health behavior theory to multiple behavior change: Considerations and approaches. Preventive Medicine, 46(3), 275–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  75. Ochiai, E., Blakey, C., McGowan, A., & Lin, Y. (2021). The evolution of the healthy people initiative: A look through the decades. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 27(6), S225–S234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  76. O’Connor, D. B. (2020). The future of health behaviour change interventions: Opportunities for open science and personality research. Health Psychology Review, 14(1), 176–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  77. Ory, M. G. (2002). The Behavior Change Consortium: Setting the stage for a new century of health behavior-change research. Health Education Research, 17(5), 500–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  78. Paek, H.-J., Hilyard, K., Freimuth, V., Barge, J. K., & Mindlin, M. (2010). Theory-based approaches to understanding public emergency preparedness: Implications for effective health and risk communication. Journal of Health Communication, 15(4), 428–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  79. Pakpour, A. H., Fazeli, S., Zeidi, I. M., Alimoradi, Z., Georgsson, M., Brostrom, A., & Potenza, M. N. (2022). Effectiveness of a mobile app-based educational intervention to treat internet gaming disorder among Iranian adolescents: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 23(1), 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  80. Panagopoulou, E., Montgomery, A., & Benos, A. (2011). Health promotion as a behavioural challenge: Are we missing attitudes? Global Health Promotion, 18(2), 54–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  81. Patel, A. B., Kuhite, P. N., Alam, A., Pusdekar, Y., Puranik, A., Khan, S. S., Kelly, P., Muthayya, S., Laba, T.-L., Almeida, M. D., & Dibley, M. J. (2019). M-SAKHI-Mobile health solutions to help community providers promote maternal and infant nutrition and health using a community-based cluster randomized controlled trial in rural India: A study protocol. Maternal & Child Nutrition, 15(4), e12850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  82. Perry, C. K., Seguin-Fowler, R., Maddock, J. E., Lenstra, N., Dieckmann, N. F., Currier, J., Andreyeva, E., Winkle, J., & Trost, S. G. (2023). Rural libraries implementing walking groups or walking groups plus civic engagement for walkability in rural communities: A comparative effectiveness trial study protocol. BMC Public Health, 23(1), 1895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  83. Pond, N., Finch, M., Sutherland, R., Wolfenden, L., Nathan, N., Kingsland, M., Grady, A., Gillham, K., Herrmann, V., & Yoong, S. L. (2019). Cluster randomised controlled trial of an m-health intervention in centre-based childcare services to reduce the packing of discretionary foods in children’s lunchboxes: Study protocol for the “SWAP IT Childcare” trial. BMJ Open, 9(5), e026829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  84. Pound, P., & Campbell, R. (2015). Exploring the feasibility of theory synthesis: A worked example in the field of health related risk-taking. Social Science & Medicine, 124, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  85. Prestwich, A., Webb, T. L., & Conner, M. (2015). Using theory to develop and test interventions to promote changes in health behaviour: Evidence, issues, and recommendations. Current Opinion in Psychology, 5, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  86. Prochaska, J. J., Spring, B., & Nigg, C. R. (2008). Multiple health behavior change research: An introduction and overview. Preventive Medicine, 46(3), 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  87. Rashid, A. F., Wafa, S. W., Abd Talib, R., & Abu Bakar, N. M. (2022). An interactive Malaysian Childhood Healthy Lifestyle (i-MaCHeL) intervention programme to change weight-related behaviour in preschool child-parent dyads: Study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial. PLoS ONE, 17(10), e0276843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  88. Raymond, J. S. (1989). Behavioral epidemiology: The science of health promotion. Health Promotion, 4(4), 281–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  89. Richards, J. A., & Johnson, M. P. (2014). A case for theoretical integration: Combining constructs from the theory of planned behavior and the extended parallel process model to predict exercise intentions. SAGE Open, 4(2), 2158244014534830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  90. Rimer, B. K., Glanz, K., & Rasband, G. (2001). Searching for evidence about health education and health behavior interventions. Health Education & Behavior: The Official Publication of the Society for Public Health Education, 28(2), 231–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  91. Rubinelli, S., & Diviani, N. (2020). The bases of targeting behavior in health promotion and disease prevention. Patient Education and Counseling, 103(12), 2395–2399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  92. Sallis, J. F., Owen, N., & Fotheringham, M. J. (2000). Behavioral epidemiology: A systematic framework to classify phases of research on health promotion and disease prevention. Annals of Behavioral Medicine: A Publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, 22(4), 294–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  93. Sanchez, A., Pijoan, J. I., Sainz de Rozas, R., Lekue, I., San Vicente, R., Quindimil, J. A., Rotaeche, R., Etxeberria, A., Mozo, C., Martinez-Cengotitabengoa, M., Monge, M., Gómez-Ramírez, C., Samper, R., Ogueta Lana, M., Celorrio, S., Merino-Inda, N., Llarena, M., Gonzalez Saenz de Tejada, M., García-Alvarez, A., & Grandes, G. (2024). De-imFAR phase II project: A study protocol for a cluster randomised implementation trial to evaluate the effectiveness of de-implementation strategies to reduce low-value statin prescribing in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. BMJ Open, 14(4), e078692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  94. Silva, C. C., Presseau, J., van Allen, Z., Schenk, P. M., Moreto, M., Dinsmore, J., & Marques, M. M. (2024). Effectiveness of interventions for changing more than one behavior at a time to manage chronic conditions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Behavioral Medicine: A Publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, 58(6), 432–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  95. Stea, T. H., Haugen, T., Berntsen, S., Guttormsen, V., Øverby, N. C., Haraldstad, K., Meland, E., & Abildsnes, E. (2016). Using the Intervention Mapping protocol to develop a family-based intervention for improving lifestyle habits among overweight and obese children: Study protocol for a quasi-experimental trial. BMC Public Health, 16(1), 1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  96. Steinmetz, H., Knappstein, M., Ajzen, I., Schmidt, P., & Kabst, R. (2016). How effective are behavior change interventions based on the theory of planned behavior? A three-level meta-analysis. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 224, 216–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  97. Tate, D. F., Lytle, L. A., Sherwood, N. E., Haire-Joshu, D., Matheson, D., Moore, S. M., Loria, C. M., Pratt, C., Ward, D. S., Belle, S. H., & Michie, S. (2016). Deconstructing interventions: Approaches to studying behavior change techniques across obesity interventions. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 6(2), 236–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  98. Ting, C. Y., Ahmad Zaidi Adruce, S., Hassali, M. A., Ting, H., Lim, C. J., Ting, R.-K., Abd Jabar, A. H. A., Osman, N. A., Shuib, I. S., Loo, S. C., Sim, S. T., Lim, S. E., & Morisky, D. E. (2018). Effectiveness and sustainability of a structured group-based educational program (MEDIHEALTH) in improving medication adherence among Malay patients with underlying type 2 diabetes mellitus in Sarawak State of Malaysia: Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 19(1), 310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  99. Tountas, Y. (2009). The historical origins of the basic concepts of health promotion and education: The role of ancient Greek philosophy and medicine. Health Promotion International, 24(2), 185–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  100. Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., … Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  101. Wallbank, G., Sherrington, C., Canning, C. G., Hassett, L., Shepherd, R., Richards, B., Mackay, C., & Tiedemann, A. (2019). Active women over 50: Study protocol for RCT of a low-dose information and support program to promote physical activity behaviour change. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  102. Wang, J., Shao, J., Zhang, S., Wang, L., & Zhang, L. (2025). Comprehending health behavior change and maintenance: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of behavior theories. American Journal of Health Education, 56(2), 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  103. Wang, K., Lee, G. H. M., Liu, P., Gao, X., Wong, S. Y. S., & Wong, M. C. M. (2022). Health belief model for empowering parental toothbrushing and sugar intake control in reducing early childhood caries among young children—Study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial. Trials, 23(1), 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  104. Weston, D., Ip, A., & Amlôt, R. (2020). Examining the application of behaviour change theories in the context of infectious disease outbreaks and emergency response: A review of reviews. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  105. Willmott, T., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2021). Are we speaking the same language? Call for action to improve theory application and reporting in behaviour change research. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  106. Yoong, S. L., Pearson, N., Reilly, K., Wolfenden, L., Jones, J., Nathan, N., Okely, A., Naylor, P.-J., Jackson, J., Giles, L., Imad, N., Gillham, K., Wiggers, J., Reeves, P., Highfield, K., Lum, M., & Grady, A. (2022). A randomised controlled trial of an implementation strategy delivered at scale to increase outdoor free play opportunities in early childhood education and care (ECEC) services: A study protocol for the get outside get active (GOGA) trial. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  107. Zhang, A. L., Liu, S., White, B. X., Liu, X. C., Durantini, M., Chan, M.-P. S., Dai, W., Zhou, Y., Leung, M., Ye, Q., O’Keefe, D., Palmese, L., & Albarracín, D. (2024). Health-promotion interventions targeting multiple behaviors: A meta-analytic review of general and behavior-specific processes of change. Psychological Bulletin, 150(7), 798–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Assessing the Spectrum of Internet Use in a Healthy Sample: Altered Psychological States and Intact Brain Responses to an Equiprobable Go/NoGo Task
Previous
The Influence of UI Design Attributes and Users’ Uncertainty Avoidance on Stickiness of the Young Elderly Toward mHealth Applications
Next