The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A meta-analysis of studies of the Health Belief Model with adults
Abstract
The Health Belief Model (HBM) relates a socio-psychologic theory of decision making to individual health-related behaviors. We conducted a meta-analysis of the relationships between four HBM dimensions (Susceptibility, Severity, Benefits and Costs) and health behavior on 16 studies that measured all four of the dimensions, measured a behavioral dependent variable and included some measures of reliability, minimal criteria for establishing the validity of the dimensions. Mean effect sizes were computed for all the studies, subgroupings representing studies of screening, risk reduction and adherence to medical regimen, and prospective and retrospective study designs. Of 24 mean effect sizes, 22 were found to be positive and statistically significant. The actual variance accounted for ranged from 0.001 to 0.09. Homogeneity was rejected for 15 of the 22, however, suggesting that the same underlying construct was not measured. Retrospective studies were found to have significantly large effect sizes for benefits and costs and smaller effect sizes for severity when compared to prospective studies. The weak effect sizes and lack of homogeneity indicate that it is premature to draw conclusions about the predictive validity of the HBM as operationalized in these studies. Our finding of only 16 studies meeting minimal criteria for valid representation of the HBM dimensions indicates that future studies should focus more on such issues.
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
Cited by
Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions
Noar, S. M., Benac, C. N., & Harris, M. S. (2007) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.673 · Cited by 2,136
Brewer, N. T., Chapman, G. B., Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., McCaul, K. D., & Weinstein, N. D. (2007) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/0278-6133.26.2.136 · Cited by 2,046
Flawed Self-Assessment: Implications for Health, Education, and the Workplace
Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x · Cited by 1,865
A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Health Belief Model Variables in Predicting Behavior
Carpenter, C. J. (2010) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2010.521906 · Cited by 1,604
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Harrison, J. A., Mullen, P. D., & Green, L. W.
- Venue
- Health Education Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1992
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 107-116
- ISSN
- 0268-1153 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-3648
- OpenAlex
- W2134859409
- Cited by
- 806
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 55.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A meta-analysis of studies of the Health Belief Model with adults. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/her/7.1.107
- The paper
- Harrison, J. A., Mullen, P. D., & Green, L. W. (1992). A meta-analysis of studies of the Health Belief Model with adults. Health Education Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/7.1.107
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.