CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 259Behavioral Health and InterventionsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceBehavioral and Psychological Studies

Behaviour change theory and evidence: a presentation to Government

Michie, Susan, West, Robert·2013·Health Psychology Review
DOI 10.1080/17437199.2011.649445
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This review presents a case study of Government policy in relation to behaviour change and suggests ways of strengthening it by drawing on theoretical and empirical approaches from health psychology. It aims to inform policy-makers and politicians about the value of behavioural science, and to provide psychologists with an example of engagement with Government. It is based on two Health Psychology submissions to the 2010 UK House of Lords' Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry into Behaviour Change. The Inquiry examined current knowledge about what interventions can effectively influence behaviour, how behaviour change interventions can be used to achieve policy goals and what factors should be taken into account by government in determining whether a particular behaviour change intervention is appropriate. The review critiques current UK Government thinking about behaviour change and presents a number of linked frameworks for determining which behaviour change interventions and policies it would be sensible to research and implement. These include the COM-B system, a systems approach to understanding behaviour in context; the PRIME Theory of motivation; the Behaviour Change Wheel, including a comprehensive listing of intervention functions and policy levers; and behaviour change techniques. We end with considerations of intervention development, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17437199.2011.649445

Cites

71 of 71 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?

  • Research in behavior-change science has highlighted the importance of three inter-related components, as seen in the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behavior model (COM-B).

    “Research in behavior-change science has highlighted the importance of three inter-related components, as seen in the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behavior model (COM-B, 10 ).”

    From The effect of risk communication on periodontal treatment outcomes: A randomized controlled trial. (2019) · cites this paper as [10]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Michie, S., & West, R.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Michie, Susan
ORCID
Venue
Health Psychology Review
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2013-03
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
1-22
ISSN
  • 1743-7199 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-7202
DOI
10.1080/17437199.2011.649445
OpenAlex
W2017701014
Cited by
259
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 3
FWCI
15.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
Keywords
behaviour change interventions, health policy, behavioral science, COM-B model, Behaviour Change Wheel, behaviour change techniques, intervention functions, policy levers, cost-effectiveness, intervention development, science-policy engagement

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