Cited by 743Behavioral Health and InterventionsHealth and Wellbeing ResearchBehavioral and Psychological Studies

Mechanisms of health behavior change in persons with chronic illness or disability: The Health Action Process Approach (HAPA).

Schwarzer, Ralf, Lippke, Sonia, Luszczynska, Aleksandra·2011·Rehabilitation Psychology

Abstract

Objective The present article presents an overview of theoretical constructs and mechanisms of health behavior change that have been found useful in research on people with chronic illness and disability. A self-regulation framework (Health Action Process Approach) serves as a backdrop, making a distinction between goal setting and goal pursuit. Risk perception, outcome expectancies, and task self-efficacy are seen as predisposing factors in the goal-setting (motivational) phase, whereas planning, action control, and maintenance/recovery self-efficacy are regarded as being influential in the subsequent goal-pursuit (volitional) phase. The first phase leads to forming an intention, and the second to actual behavior change. Such a mediator model serves to explain social-cognitive processes in health behavior change. By adding a second layer, a moderator model is provided in which three stages are distinguished to segment the audience for tailored interventions. Identifying persons as preintenders, intenders, or actors offers an opportunity to match theory-based treatments to specific target groups. Numerous research and assessment examples, especially within the physical activity domain, serve to illustrate the application of the model to rehabilitation settings and health promotion for people with chronic illness or disability. Conclusions/implications The theoretical developments and research evidence for the self-regulation framework explain the cognitive mechanisms of behav…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0024509

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schwarzer, R., Lippke, S., & Luszczynska, A.
Affiliations
  • Freie Universität Berlin (DE)
  • Constructor University (DE)
Venue
Rehabilitation Psychology
Published
2011
Volume
56
Issue
3
Pages
161-170
ISSN
  • 0090-5550 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1544
OpenAlex
W1988889621
Cited by
743
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 10
FWCI
31.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Rehabilitation Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Wellbeing Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
Keywords
Health Action Process Approach, health behavior change, chronic disease, disability, self-regulation, goal setting, goal pursuit, risk perception, outcome expectations, self-efficacy, action control, personalized interventions, physical activity, medication adherence, rehabilitation, health promotion
MeSH terms
Chronic Disease, Goals, Persons with Disabilities, Disabled Persons, Health Promotion, Humans, Models, Psychological, Motivation, Patient Compliance, Social Control, Informal, Social Support, Health Behavior, Exercise, Risk Assessment, Self Efficacy, Intention

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