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
Noar, S. M., & Zimmerman, R. S. (2005) · Health Education Research · doi:10.1093/her/cyg113 · Cited by 793
Social cognition models and health behaviour: A structured review
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2000) · Psychology & Health · doi:10.1080/08870440008400299 · Cited by 797
Jones, C. J., Smith, H., & Llewellyn, C. (2014) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2013.802623 · Cited by 421
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
Rothman, A. J. (2004) · International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity · doi:10.1186/1479-5868-1-11 · Cited by 322
Improving patient adherence: a three-factor model to guide practice
DiMatteo, M. R., Haskard-Zolnierek, K. B., & Martin, L. R. (2012) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2010.537592 · Cited by 288
Barbieri, D. M., Lou, B., Passavanti, M., Hui, C., Hoff, I., Lessa, D. A., Sikka, G., Chang, K., Gupta, A., Fang, K., et al. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0245886 · Cited by 246
Holmes, E. A. F., Hughes, D. A., & Morrison, V. L. (2014) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2014.08.2671 · Cited by 199
Changing Behavior Using the Model of Action Phases
Keller, L., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2020) · The Handbook of Behavior Change · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.006 · Cited by 147
Simons, L. E., Logan, D. E., Chastain, L., & Cerullo, M. (2010) · The Clinical Journal of Pain · doi:10.1097/ajp.0b013e3181cf59fb · Cited by 127
Health beliefs and the valence framework in health information seeking behaviors
Mou, J., Shin, D.-H., & Cohen, J. (2016) · Information Technology & People · doi:10.1108/itp-06-2015-0140 · Cited by 102
Achaval, S. D., & Suarez-Almazor, M. E. (2010) · International Journal of Clinical Rheumatology · doi:10.2217/ijr.10.15 · Cited by 90
Cahir, C., Guinan, E., Dombrowski, S. U., Sharp, L., & Bennett, K. (2015) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2015.05.013 · Cited by 84
Hawe, P., McKenzie, N., & Scurry, R. (1998) · Archives of Disease in Childhood · doi:10.1136/adc.79.2.136 · Cited by 44
Lee, B., 김채린, 윤문영, 김민희, 손영곤, & 이상록 (2014) · Journal of Public Relations · doi:10.15814/jpr.2014.18.2.163 · Cited by 37
Goldstein, S. P., Zhang, F., Klasnja, P., Hoover, A., Wing, R. R., & Thomas, J. G. (2021) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/33568 · Cited by 26
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
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.