The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predicting Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Uptake in Young Adult Women: Comparing the Health Belief Model and Theory of Planned Behavior
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Although theories of health behavior have guided thousands of studies, relatively few studies have compared these theories against one another. PURPOSE: The purpose of the current study was to compare two classic theories of health behavior-the Health Belief Model (HBM) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)-in their prediction of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. METHODS: After watching a gain-framed, loss-framed, or control video, women (N = 739) ages 18-26 completed a survey assessing HBM and TPB constructs. HPV vaccine uptake was assessed 10 months later. RESULTS: Although the message framing intervention had no effect on vaccine uptake, support was observed for both the TPB and HBM. Nevertheless, the TPB consistently outperformed the HBM. Key predictors of uptake included subjective norms, self-efficacy, and vaccine cost. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the observed advantage of the TPB, findings revealed considerable overlap between the two theories and highlighted the importance of proximal versus distal predictors of health behavior.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Historical Origins of the Health Belief Model
Rosenstock, I. M. (1974) · Health Education Monographs · doi:10.1177/109019817400200403 · Cited by 6,116
Social Learning Theory and the Health Belief Model
Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J., & Becker, M. H. (1988) · Health Education Quarterly · doi:10.1177/109019818801500203 · Cited by 5,564 · cited 2×
“However, due to its success in predicting behavior, self-efficacy was added to later renditions of the HBM [5, 13].”
BackgroundSocial-cognitive predictors of health behavior: Action self-efficacy and coping self-efficacy.
Schwarzer, R., & Renner, B. (2000) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/0278-6133.19.5.487 · Cited by 883
Cited by
Increasing Vaccination: Putting Psychological Science Into Action
Brewer, N. T., Chapman, G. B., Rothman, A. J., Leask, J., & Kempe, A. (2017) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100618760521 · Cited by 1,233
Strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy–A systematic review
Jarrett, C., Wilson, R., O’Leary, M., Eckersberger, E., & Larson, H. J. (2015) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.040 · Cited by 1,066
Using behavioral insights to increase vaccination policy effectiveness
Betsch, C., Böhm, R., & Chapman, G. B. (2015) · Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1177/2372732215600716 · Cited by 378
The application of health behavior theories to promote cervical cancer screening uptake
Dsouza, J. P., Van den Broucke, S., Pattanshetty, S., & Dhoore, W. (2021) · Public Health Nursing · doi:10.1111/phn.12944 · Cited by 27
Tian, S., & Li, J.-Y. (2021) · Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising · doi:10.1080/10641734.2020.1841691 · Cited by 22
Niu, Z., & Willoughby, J. F. (2018) · Asian Journal of Communication · doi:10.1080/01292986.2018.1441319 · Cited by 13
Degarege, A., Krupp, K., Srinivas, V., Ibrahimou, B., & Madhivanan, P. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0240749 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Gerend, M. A., & Shepherd, J. E.
- Venue
- Annals of Behavioral Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-05-01
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 171-180
- ISSN
- 0742-5554 (ISSN-L)
- 0883-6612
- 1532-4796
- OpenAlex
- W1976812043
- Cited by
- 455
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 12.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
