Methods for environmental change; an exploratory study

BMC Public Health

Chris Smerecnik²  Robert Panne¹  Nell H Gottlieb³  Gerjo Kok¹ 

[1] Work & Social Psychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands;Applied Psychology, Fontys Hogeschool, Eindhoven, the Netherlands;Kinesiology & Health Education, University of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA

关键词: Intervention;    Health promotion;    Environment;    Behavior change method;   

Others  :  1162771
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-12-1037

 received in 2012-08-29, accepted in 2012-11-23,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

While the interest of health promotion researchers in change methods directed at the target population has a long tradition, interest in change methods directed at the environment is still developing. In this survey, the focus is on methods for environmental change; especially about how these are composed of methods for individual change (‘Bundling’) and how within one environmental level, organizations, methods differ when directed at the management (‘At’) or applied by the management (‘From’).

Methods

The first part of this online survey dealt with examining the ‘bundling’ of individual level methods to methods at the environmental level. The question asked was to what extent the use of an environmental level method would involve the use of certain individual level methods. In the second part of the survey the question was whether there are differences between applying methods directed ‘at’ an organization (for instance, by a health promoter) versus ‘from’ within an organization itself. All of the 20 respondents are experts in the field of health promotion.

Results

Methods at the individual level are frequently bundled together as part of a method at a higher ecological level. A number of individual level methods are popular as part of most of the environmental level methods, while others are not chosen very often. Interventions directed at environmental agents often have a strong focus on the motivational part of behavior change.

There are different approaches targeting a level or being targeted from a level. The health promoter will use combinations of motivation and facilitation. The manager will use individual level change methods focusing on self-efficacy and skills. Respondents think that any method may be used under the right circumstances, although few endorsed coercive methods.

Conclusions

Taxonomies of theoretical change methods for environmental change should include combinations of individual level methods that may be bundled and separate suggestions for methods targeting a level or being targeted from a level. Future research needs to cover more methods to rate and to be rated. Qualitative data may explain some of the surprising outcomes, such as the lack of large differences and the avoidance of coercion. Taxonomies should include the theoretical parameters that limit the effectiveness of the method.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Kok et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bartholomew LK, Parcel GS, Kok G, Gottlieb NH, Fernandez ME: Planning Health Promotion Programs; an Intervention Mapping approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2011.
• [2]Abraham C, Michie S: A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychol 2008, 27:379-387.
• [3]Butterfoss FD, Kegler MC, Francisco VT: Mobilizing organizations for health promotion: theories of organizational change. In Health behavior and health education. Edited by Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2008:335-362.
• [4]Christoffe KK: Public health advocacy: process and product. Am J Public Health 2000, 90:722-726.
• [5]Heaney CA, Israel BA: Social networks and social support. In Health behavior and health education. Edited by Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008:189-210.
• [6]Cummings TG, Worley CG: Organization development and change. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning; 2009.
• [7]Minkler M, Wallerstein N: Improving health through community organization and building: a health education perspective. In Community organizing and community building for health. Edited by Minkler M. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 2004:26-50.
• [8]Butterfoss FD: Coalitions and partnerships in community health. San Francisco: Wiley; 2007.
• [9]Cobb RW, Elder CD: Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda-building. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press; 1983.
• [10]Petty RE, Barden J, Wheeler SC: The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion: developing health promotions for sustained behavioral change. In Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research. Edited by DiClemente RJ, Crosby RA, Kegler M. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2009:185-214.
• [11]McAlister AL, Perry CL, Parcel GS: How individuals, environments, and health behaviors interact: social cognitive theory. In Health behavior and health education. Edited by Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008:169-188.
• [12]Kazdin AE: Behavior modification in applied settings. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press; 2008.
• [13]Prochaska JO, Redding CA, Evers KE: The transtheoretical model and stages of change. In Health behavior and health education. Edited by Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008:97-121.
• [14]Latham GP, Locke EA: New developments in and directions for goal-setting research. European Psychologist 2007, 12:290-300.
• [15]Bandura A: Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986.
• [16]Forsyth DR: Group dynamics. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education; 2006.
• [17]Evans RI, Getz JG, Raines BS: Applying social inoculation concepts to prevention of HIV/AIDS in adolescents: Just say no is obviously not enough. New York: Paper presented at the meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine; 1992.
• [18]Lustria ML, Cortese J, Noar SM, Glueckauf RL: Computer-tailored health interventions delivered over the Web: review and analysis of key components. Patient Educ Couns 2009, 74:156-173.
• [19]Maibach EW, Cotton D: Moving people to behavior change: a staged social cognitive approach to message design. In Designing health messages: Approaches from communication theory and public health practice. Edited by Maibach EW, Parrott RL. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995:41-64.
• [20]National Cancer Institute: Greater than the sum: Systems thinking in tobacco control (Publication No. 06–6085, Tobacco Control Monograph No. 18). Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute; 2007.
• [21]Turner JC: Explaining the nature of power: a three-process theory. European Journal of Social Psychology 2005, 35:1-22.
• [22]Flaspohler P, Duffy J, Wandersman A, Stillman L, Maras MA: Unpacking prevention capacity: an intersection of research-to-practice models and community-centered models. Am J Community Psychol 2008, 41:182-196.
• [23]Weick KE, Quinn RE: Organizational change and development. Annu Rev Psychol 1999, 50:361-386.
• [24]Jones GR: Organizational theory, design, and change. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice-Hall; 2004.
• [25]Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ: Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manage Rev 1997, 22:853-886.
• [26]Rothman J: Three models of community organization practice, their mixing and phasing. In Strategies of community organization: A book of readings. Edited by Cox FM, Erlich JL, Rothman J, Tropman JE. Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock; 2004:3-26.
• [27]Wallack L, Dorfman L, Jernigan D, Themba M: Media advocacy and public health: Power for prevention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1993.
• [28]Stavri Z, Michie S: Classification systems in behavioural science: current systems and lessons from the natural, medical and social sciences. Health Psychology Review 2012, 6:113-140.
• [29]Khan LK, Sobush K, Keener D, Goodman K, Lowry A, Kakietek J, et al.: Recommended community strategies and measurements to prevent obesity in the United States. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2009, 58(RR07):1-26.
• [30]Schaalma H, Kok G: Decoding health education interventions: the times are a-changin'. Psychol Health 2009, 24:5-9.
• [31]Kok G, Gottlieb NH, Commers M, Smerecnik C: The ecological approach in health promotion programs: a decade later. Am J Health Promot 2008, 22:437-442.
• [32]McLean GN: Organization development: Principles, Processes, Performance. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler; 2005.
• [33]Abraham C, Graham-Rowe E: Are worksite interventions effective in increasing physical activity? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review 2009, 3:108-144.
• [34]Maon F, Lindgreen A, Swaen V: Designing and implementing corporate social responsibility: an integrative framework grounded in theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics 2009, 87:71-89.
• [35]LimeSurvey Project Team/Carsten Schmitz: LimeSurvey: An Open Source survey tool. Germany: Hamburg; 2012. http://limesurvey.org webcite