Cited by 2,336Behavioral Health and InterventionsPublic Health Policies and EducationHealth Policy Implementation Science

The role of behavioral science theory in development and implementation of public health interventions

Glanz, Karen, Bishop, Donald B.·2010·Annual Review of Public Health

Abstract

Increasing evidence suggests that public health and health-promotion interventions that are based on social and behavioral science theories are more effective than those lacking a theoretical base. This article provides an overview of the state of the science of theory use for designing and conducting health-promotion interventions. Influential contemporary perspectives stress the multiple determinants and multiple levels of determinants of health and health behavior. We describe key types of theory and selected often-used theories and their key concepts, including the health belief model, the transtheoretical model, social cognitive theory, and the ecological model. This summary is followed by a review of the evidence about patterns and effects of theory use in health behavior intervention research. Examples of applied theories in three large public health programs illustrate the feasibility, utility, and challenges of using theory-based interventions. This review concludes by identifying cross-cutting themes and important future directions for bridging the divides between theory, practice, and research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103604

Cites

114 of 114 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

2 of the 116 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Glanz, K., & Bishop, D. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Minnesota Department of Health (US)
Venue
Annual Review of Public Health
Published
2010-03-01
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
399-418
ISSN
  • 0163-7525 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-2093
OpenAlex
W2122295735
Cited by
2,336
References
116
Citations by year
2026: 101 · 2025: 135 · 2024: 172 · 2023: 186 · 2022: 235 · 2021: 266 · 2020: 269 · 2019: 148 · 2018: 166 · 2017: 135 · 2016: 139 · 2015: 128 · 2014: 87 · 2013: 72 · 2012: 55
FWCI
5.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annual Review of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
theory-based intervention, health behavior change, public health interventions, health promotion, Health Belief Model, transtheoretical model, social cognitive theory, ecological model, theory-practice gap, intervention design
MeSH terms
Behavioral Sciences, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Health Behavior, Public Health Practice

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