Cited by 1,154Motivation and Self-Concept in SportsBehavioral Health and InterventionsDiabetes Management and Education

A meta-analysis of self-determination theory-informed intervention studies in the health domain: effects on motivation, health behavior, physical, and psychological health

Open access
Ntoumanis, Nikos, Ng, Johan Y.Y., Prestwich, Andrew, Quested, Eleanor, Hancox, Jennie E., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, Cecilie, Deci, Edward L., Ryan, Richard M. +2 more·2021·Health Psychology Review

Abstract

There are no literature reviews that have examined the impact of health-domain interventions, informed by self-determination theory (SDT), on SDT constructs and health indices. Our aim was to meta-analyse such interventions in the health promotion and disease management literatures. Studies were eligible if they used an experimental design, tested an intervention that was based on SDT, measured at least one SDT-based motivational construct, and at least one indicator of health behaviour, physical health, or psychological health. Seventy-three studies met these criteria and provided sufficient data for the purposes of the review. A random-effects meta-analytic model showed that SDT-based interventions produced small-to-medium changes in most SDT constructs at the end of the intervention period, and in health behaviours at the end of the intervention period and at the follow-up. Small positive changes in physical and psychological health outcomes were also observed at the end of the interventions. Increases in need support and autonomous motivation (but not controlled motivation or amotivation) were associated with positive changes in health behaviour. In conclusion, SDT-informed interventions positively affect indices of health; these effects are modest, heterogeneous, and partly due to increases in self-determined motivation and support from social agents.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17437199.2020.1718529

Cites

116 of 116 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 118 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Moreno-Murcia, J. A., & Sánchez-Latorre, F. (2016). The effects of autonomy support in physical education classes [Efectos del soporte de autonomía en clases de educación física]. RICYDE. Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte, 12, 79-89. doi:10.5232/ricyde * · DOI
  2. Prestwich, A., Sheeran, P., Webb, T. L., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2015). Implementation intentions. In M. Conner, & P. Norman (Eds.), Predicting and changing health behaviour: Research and practice with social cognition models (3rd ed.; pp. 321- 357). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
  3. Teixeira, P. J., Marques, M. M., Silva, M. N., Brunet, J., Duda, J., Haerens, L., … Hagger, M. S. (2019). Classification of tech- niques used in self-determination theory-based interventions in health contexts: An expert consensus study. PsyArXiv, doi:10.31234/osf.io/z9wqu * · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ntoumanis, N., Ng, J. Y. Y., Prestwich, A., Quested, E., Hancox, J. E., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Lonsdale, C., & Williams, G. C.
Affiliations
  • Curtin University (AU)
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • School of Psychology, Curtin University, Perth, Australia
  • University of South-Eastern Norway (NO)
  • Australian Catholic University (AU)
  • University of Rochester Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Ntoumanis, Nikos
Venue
Health Psychology Review
Published
2020-02-03
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
214-244
ISSN
  • 1743-7199 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-7202
OpenAlex
W3002054708
Cited by
1,154
References
118
Citations by year
2026: 237 · 2025: 209 · 2024: 181 · 2023: 264 · 2022: 124 · 2021: 107 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 1
FWCI
21.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Psychology Review (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
self-determination theory, health promotion, disease management, autonomous motivation, need support, controlled motivation, amotivation, health behavior, physical health, mental health
MeSH terms
Health Promotion, Humans, Mental Health, Motivation, Health Behavior, Personal Autonomy

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