CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 658Global Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyPublic Health Policies and EducationBehavioral Health and Interventions

Public acceptability of government intervention to change health-related behaviours: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

Open access
Diepeveen, Stephanie, Ling, Tom, Suhrcke, Marc, Roland, Martin, Marteau, Theresa M·2013·BMC Public Health
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-13-756PMC PMC3765153
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Governments can intervene to change health-related behaviours using various measures but are sensitive to public attitudes towards such interventions. This review describes public attitudes towards a range of policy interventions aimed at changing tobacco and alcohol use, diet, and physical activity, and the extent to which these attitudes vary with characteristics of (a) the targeted behaviour (b) the intervention and (c) the respondents. Methods: We searched electronic databases and conducted a narrative synthesis of empirical studies that reported public attitudes in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand towards interventions relating to tobacco, alcohol, diet and physical activity. Two hundred studies met the inclusion criteria. Results: Over half the studies (105/200, 53%) were conducted in North America, with the most common interventions relating to tobacco control (110/200, 55%), followed by alcohol (42/200, 21%), diet-related interventions (18/200, 9%), interventions targeting both diet and physical activity (18/200, 9%), and physical activity alone (3/200, 2%). Most studies used survey-based methods (160/200, 80%), and only ten used experimental designs. Acceptability varied as a function of: (a) the targeted behaviour, with more support observed for smoking-related interventions; (b) the type of intervention, with less intrusive interventions, those already implemented, and those targeting children and young people attracting most support; and (c) the characteristics of respondents, with support being highest in those not engaging in the targeted behaviour, and with women and older respondents being more likely to endorse more restrictive measures. Conclusions: Public acceptability of government interventions to change behaviour is greatest for the least intrusive interventions, which are often the least effective, and for interventions targeting the behaviour of others, rather than the respondent him or herself. Experimental studies are needed to assess how the presentation of the problem and the benefits of intervention might increase acceptability for those interventions which are more effective but currently less acceptable.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2458-13-756

Cites

123 of 123 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?

  • Acceptability is known to be a key factor in the successful implementation of interventions.

    “Acceptability is known to be a key factor in the successful implementation of interventions [30].”

    From 'A Mindful ACT'- testing the feasibility and acceptability of a brief psychosocial intervention designed to accompany osteopathy treatment for people who live with persistent pain. (2021) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Background says public acceptability may critically affect an intervention’s effectiveness, supporting its importance. It does not establish acceptability as a known key factor in successful implementation; that wording is more certain and concerns implementation rather than effectiveness. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Quantitative findings revealed high CAPTIVATE program engagement, perceived utility, and satisfaction, which compose markers of intervention acceptability.

    “quantitative findings revealed high CAPTIVATE program engagement, perceived utility, and satisfaction, which compose markers of intervention acceptability”

    From Multi-family pediatric pain group therapy: Capturing acceptance and cultivating change (2017) · cites this paper as [36]

    The Methods and Results sections examine public attitudes toward government policies to change health-related behaviour, not findings from the CAPTIVATE program. The Discussion addresses perceived effectiveness and acceptability, but does not identify engagement, perceived utility, and satisfaction as markers of acceptability. Searches for those markers and CAPTIVATE found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Suhrcke M Nugent R Stuckler D Rocco L Chronic disease: an economic perspective 2006 London: Oxford Health Alliance [ http://www.sehn.org/tccpdf/Chronic%20disease%20economic%20perspective.pdf]
  2. Smith C Population Trends, edition 141 2010 UK: Office for National Statistics

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Diepeveen, S., Ling, T., Suhrcke, M., Roland, M., & Marteau, T. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • RAND Europe (GB)
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
Corresponding author
Marteau, Theresa M
ORCID
Venue
BMC Public Health
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2013-08-15
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
756-756
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1471-2458-13-756
PMC
PMC3765153
OpenAlex
W2021420848
Cited by
656
References
123
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 69 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 76 · 2021: 91 · 2020: 101 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 2
FWCI
3.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (acceptedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
public acceptance, state intervention, health behavior change, tobacco control, alcohol policy, dietary intervention, physical activity promotion, public attitudes, treatment acceptability, smoking cessation, children and young people, gender differences, age differences
MeSH terms
Smoking Prevention, Alcohol Drinking, Australia, Diet, Europe, Government, Health Policy, Health Promotion, Humans, Motor Activity, New Zealand, North America, Public Opinion, Narration

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