| Literature DB >> 31267624 |
Paul Flowers1, Julie Riddell1, Nicola Boydell2, Gemma Teal3, Nicky Coia4, Lisa McDaid1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Mass media HIV testing interventions are effective in increasing testing, but there has been no examination of their theory or behaviour change technique (BCT) content. Within a heterogeneous body of studies with weak evaluative designs and differing outcomes, we attempted to gain useful knowledge to shape future interventions.Entities:
Keywords: HIV testing; behaviour change; behaviour change techniques; intervention content; men who have sex with men; review
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31267624 PMCID: PMC7058418 DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12377
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Health Psychol ISSN: 1359-107X
Figure 1Prisma flow chart for study selection.
Overview of included studies
| Study details | Intervention effectiveness | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reference | Purpose (aim and objectives) | Design | Recruitment and data collection methods | Sample | Eligibility criteria | Exclusion criteria | Nature of intervention (s) | Control intervention | Outcome Measures | |
| Blas | To study the association between video‐based online interventions and proportions of HIV testing in gay‐identified and non‐gay‐identified MSM. | RCT | Online banner advertisements to redirect to study website. After consent, participant randomly assigned to condition using computer algorithm. Baseline assessment, matched emails to those attending clinic | Total = 459, non‐gay‐identified, 97 = video intervention, 90 = control (text) intervention; gay‐identified, 142 = video intervention, 130 = control (text) intervention | (1) ≥ 18 years, (2) male and report having had sex with men, (3) be a resident of Lima, Peru, (4) answer the survey from Lima, Peru (5) HIV test over 12 months ago, (5) have a valid email address and, (6) do not report being HIV positive | Excluded 937 (916 did not meet criteria, 21 did not want to participate) leaving final sample of 459. Report only results from the gay and non‐gay‐identified MSM group | Videos framed within Health Belief Model and aimed to identify strategies to overcome reasons for not testing specific to target audience. | Text used in control condition came from existing intervention to increase testing in Mexico. | Intention to get tested, actual testing | Evidence of a positive effect in relation to the antecedents of HIV testing (e.g., knowledge of HIV testing increased) |
| Brady | To pilot a national, free at the point of use home HIV sampling service | Non‐comparative study | Testing rates were gathered during the intervention period | 9,868 tests were requested over the pilot period and 6,230 (63.1%) were returned | Not reported | Not reported | HIV testing interventions and social media marketing were used to increase HIV testing rates, in particular those requesting self‐tests | Not applicable | Testing rates | Evidence of a positive effect on HIV testing itself |
| Chiasson | To compare HIV disclosure 3 months before and after viewing intervention video | Pre‐/Post‐test study | Online banner advertisements; online self‐complete questionnaire at baseline and 3 month follow‐up. | Convenience sample: Original sample of 3,052, reduced to 442 in final sample following dropout/inclusion criteria | Limited to the 442 men who reported sex in both baseline and follow‐up interviews. | Not reported | The Morning after‐Use of 9 min dramatic video to prompt critical thinking about HIV disclosure, HIV testing, alcohol use and risky behaviours | Not applicable | Self‐reported HIV disclosure and other risk behaviours | No evidence of a positive/negative effect |
| Erausquin | A pilot intervention to increase awareness of free testing services, provide incentives for getting test results, and improve access to treatment in Latino males. | Retrospective cohort study or cross‐sectional study | Community venues: outreach volunteers distributed cards to target population to encourage testing. Routinely gathered data from clinic with addition of information of outreach card. Data from the intervention period (August–October 2004) compared to data from two comparison periods: May–July 2004 and August–October 2003. | Convenience sample: Males testing for MSM within LAGLC's Service, Prevention, Outreach, Treatment centre in West Hollywood‐Fall 2003‐ | Results are limited to males who attended HIV testing within specific time frames, ≤ age 25, reporting sexual activity with a male. | Not reported | Outreach cards provided at Latino‐oriented gay club and event nights could be swapped for a movie pass at the time of testing. Information was also advertised on two Internet sites and in three gay/bisexual‐oriented magazines. Again, these included outreach cards that could be exchanged for movie passes at the time of testing. | Not applicable | Testing rates of those attending clinic | Evidence of a positive effect on HIV testing itself |
| Flowers, Knussen, McDaid, and Li ( | To understand the extent of self‐reported exposure to intervention among men frequenting venues for gay MSM. To explore whether sexual health‐related behaviours varied by degree of exposure to the intervention. | Cross‐sectional study | Men recruited from seven bars frequented by gay men and other MSM in Glasgow 10 months post‐intervention launch | Convenience sample: 1,313 men were approached and 822 participated, Final sample = 784 post‐exclusions | All men present or entering the venue were approached to complete a questionnaire | Final sample excluded men who identified themselves as HIV positive | Social marketing intervention aimed at MSM promoting use of condoms and water‐based lubricant during Anal intercourse; regular sexual health check‐ups and HIV testing at least every 6 months. Materials included posters, electronic images, and leaflets, with a intervention website. Posters and leaflets were distributed to both clinical and community (wider and gay scene) settings. | Not applicable | Self‐reported recency of HIV testing, recency of STI testing, Intention to HIV test, and correct use of lubricant | Evidence of a positive effect on HIV testing itself |
| Gilbert | To describe the impact of targeted NAAT on identification of AHI and discuss the potential of social marketing interventions to optimize detection among MSM. | Cross‐sectional study | Samples were included from six study clinics if sex recorded as male, transgendered or missing, and were ≥18 years | Convenience sample: Testing rates from six clinics | Sex recorded as male, transgendered or missing, and were ≥18 years | Not reported | (1) What Are You Waiting For – focused on raising awareness of rapid testing and NAAT (December 2009 to February 2010) (2) Hottest At The Start – focused on raising awareness of AHI and increased transmission risk in MSM in new relationships or engaging in risky sex. (June–August 2011). | Not applicable | Testing rates of those attending clinic | Evidence of a positive effect on HIV testing itself |
| Guy | To measure the extent of any change in the uptake of testing for HIV and STIs during and subsequent to the intervention. | Cross‐sectional study | Three types of data: Sentinel surveillance data – five clinics referred to within intervention. Routine laboratory data – four clinics (pre‐intervention, during and post‐intervention). Behavioural survey – subset of existing national survey, mainly administered at gay scene event. Surveys for 2004, 2005, and 2006 were compared. | Convenience samples: those attending clinics (sentinel data/laboratory data), men completing Melbourne Gay Community Periodic Survey living in Victoria (numbers not explicitly stated) | Lab/Sentinel surveillance data – men attending clinic within set time frames. Behavioural survey – only information from Victorian residents was included | Not reported | ‘Check‐It‐Out’ targeted MSM including specific groups (community/non‐community attached and ‘culturally and linguistically diverse’). Intervention aimed to increase HIV and STI testing, increase regular HIV and STI testing and promote general sexual health. | Not applicable | Lab/sentinel data: number of tests conducted per month. Behaviour study: changes in self‐reported testing patterns | No evidence of a positive/negative effect |
| Hickson | Longitudinal survey to examine patterns of HIV testing and assess whether testing rates were associated with intervention periods. | Interrupted time series | Internet recruitment. Invite to enrol sent to those completing a previous survey and users of two gay‐dating websites. Self‐reported baseline survey followed by 13 monthly follow‐ups. | There were 3,386 enrolments, following exclusions/dropouts final sample of 2,047 participants. | Male; England resident; ≥16 years; sexually attracted to/has sex with men; valid email address | Those with existing HIV‐positive diagnosis and those with no or inconsistent HIV test results. | (1) ‘I Did It’ (December 2010‐April 2011)‐Terrence Higgins Trust (THT) intervention aimed to make MSM aware of ease and convenience of HIV testing. Used media advertisements, radio and website. (2) ‘Clever Dick/Smart Arse’ (November 2011–February 2012)‐THT intervention promoting condom use (3)’Count Me In’ – GMFA, encouraged men to commit to an action plan which included HIV testing. | Not applicable | Self‐reported HIV testing behaviour and self‐reported exposure to interventions | Evidence of a positive effect on HIV testing itself |
| Hilliam and Fraser ( | To evaluate the impact on awareness of HIV, attitudes towards testing, prevention and safer sex in both MSM and Health Professionals | Cross‐sectional study | Internet recruitment. Websites contained link to online survey. Self‐reported online survey pre‐intervention (April–May 2010) and post‐intervention (October–November 2010). Post‐intervention recruitment added use of Grindr. | Convenience sample: Pre‐stage sample: 309 (MSM = 88; HP = 221) Post‐stage sample: 980 (MSM = 775, HP = 205) | Not reported | Men who have sex with women only | HIV Wake up Intervention (May 2010) – to inform MSM across Scotland about HIV and levels of transmission, the benefits of prevention and regular testing and where they can go to seek more information and advice. Resources included leaflets and posters, digital online banners and targeted web pages and other web media (e.g., emails targeted at Gaydar users). Materials displayed in ‘scene’ venues and wider community. | Not applicable | Self‐reported knowledge and understanding around HIV testing, awareness and exposure to intervention, HIV testing, and other risk behaviours | Evidence of a positive effect on HIV testing itself |
| Hirshfield | To assess the feasibility and efficacy of implementing an online intervention (videos/HIV prevention webpage) versus a no‐content control. | RCT | Online banner advertisements with additional email sent to US members of one of the websites. Online self‐complete questionnaire at baseline and 60 days post baseline follow‐up. Participants randomly assigned to conditions | Convenience sample: Total = 3,092: Control = 609 Prevention webpage = 609, Dramatic video only = 625, Documentary video only = 633, Both videos = 616 | (1) identify as male; (2) ≥18 years; (3) live in the United States.; (4) provide valid email; (5) report oral or anal sex with a current male partner (new or not), and oral, anal, or vaginal sex with at least one new partner (male or female) in the previous 60 days; (6) ability to read/respond in English | (1) lived outside of the United States; (2) identified as female, female‐to‐male transgender or male‐to‐female transgender. Duplicate cases were identified and excluded. | Five study conditions: (1) dramatic video; (2) documentary video; (3) both videos; (4) prevention webpage; and (5) control (i.e., received no intervention content). The Morning After‐drama (9 min) depicting three gay male friends, one of whom thinks he had unprotected sex with an HIV‐positive man whilst intoxicated and seeks advice from friends. Talking About HIV – documentary (5 min) HIV‐positive men discuss their experiences, uses footage from a feature‐length documentary, ‘Meth.’ | Control received no content. | Self‐reported HIV disclosure and other risk behaviours | No evidence of a positive/negative effect |
| James ( | To evaluate effectiveness of English intervention, which promotes testing to men who have sex with men (MSM) and Africans. | Cross‐sectional study | Limited information: Data from testing centres and community surveys | Not explicitly stated | Not reported | Not reported | National HIV Testing week (4 weeks) promoted through targeted print, social media, and outdoor advertising. Stakeholders also provide expanded testing services. | Not applicable | Clinic‐based testing rates | Evidence of a positive effect on HIV testing itself |
| McOwan, Gilleece, Chislett, and Mandalia ( | To evaluate the effect of an HIV testing intervention specifically aimed at gay men in central London, UK, who were South European Origin, Black Origin or aged under 25 years old. | Cross‐sectional study | Convenience sample: MSM testing for HIV within one of three London clinics during 2000, laboratory records were located for those matching three target groups (South European origin, Black origin, ≤25 years) | Three clinics in London – 1999 = 65 (target clinic), 239 (other clinics); 2000 = 292 (target clinic), 236 (other clinics) | MSM testing for HIV at one of three target clinics during a specific time frame, specifically South European origin, Black origin, ≤25 years | Not reported | Gimmie 5 min (12 weeks): Advertisements in free paper distributed on the gay scene in London, images were chosen to reflect target groups | Not applicable | Testing rates at target clinic, UAI since last test, testing as result of an advert | Evidence of a positive effect on HIV testing itself |
| Pedrana | To assess intervention impact using four key indicators: intervention awareness, HIV/STI knowledge, health‐seeking behaviour, and HIV/STI testing | Cross‐sectional study | Cross‐sectional data: Multiple recruitment methods: convenience samples, for example, gay community venues, gay community events; participants from a recent community‐based HIV prevalence study and snowballing. Completed online surveys, linked with unique code to allow matching, surveyed at regular intervals (3–6 monthly). Clinic data: routinely collected data from Victorian Primary Care Network for Sentinel Surveillance | Cross‐sectional data: Sample of 295 gay men Clinic data: data from three clinics | Men, ≥18 years, self‐identified as gay or homosexually active in the past 5 years. Men had to have been recruited between September 2008 and April 2009 and completed any of the three survey rounds. | Not reported | Drama Down under: Intervention aimed to increase access to treatment, increase awareness and knowledge, and minimize the transmission of HIV/STIs in MSM. Used print and radio advertisement, printed resources, outdoor advertisements, public events, and banner advertising on gay‐dating sites, ‘novel’ intervention resources (e.g., fridge magnets, drink holders, and underwear) and intervention‐specific events (e.g., the ‘Drama Down Underwear’ Show). | Not applicable | Self‐reported Awareness of intervention, HIV/STI knowledge, Testing in past 6 months, Health‐seeking behaviours. Clinic data‐testing rates | Evidence of a positive effect on HIV testing itself |
| Prati | To investigate the effect of intervention on performance of HIV/AIDS protective behaviours. | BA study | General population: computer‐assisted telephone survey, random digit dialling. Used Proportional quota sampling. Contacted again after 6 months. MSM participants – email lists and Web‐based communities. Self‐administered anonymous online survey, again contacted again after 6 months. Migrant participants – three survey sites: workplace, migrant shelter/camp, and centre for the teaching of Italian as a second language. Self‐administered anonymous paper‐and‐pencil survey and again after 6 months. | General population ( | ≥18 years. Took part in both pre‐/post‐surveys and sexually active in the previous 6 months. | Not sexually active in the previous 6 months before each interview | ‘United Against AIDS’ (December 2012, 2 weeks; February–March 2013, 2 weeks) – television and radio public service announcements, print materials (e.g., posters, brochures), Web‐based advertisements, and cinema and newspaper advertisements. Emphasizing benefits and advantages of safer sex behaviour and getting an HIV test. | Not applicable | Self‐reported exposure to the intervention, recent (in the previous 6 months) HIV risk behaviours and lifetime HIV testing | No evidence of a positive/negative effect |
| Solorio | To assess intervention feasibility and identify processes that worked and those that did not. | Interrupted time series | Convenience sample: recruited from various sites, including community events, the Internet, STD clinics, entertainment venues, and Latino newspapers and referral of peers to study. Survey every 3 months, starting with 3 months before intervention (baseline interview), 3 months into, intervention and 2 months post‐intervention. Self‐reported questionnaires | Pre‐intervention assessment – 50, mid‐intervention assessment – 44, follow‐up post‐intervention – 41 | (1) Self‐report Latino heritage; (2) speak Spanish; (3) biological male; (4) report sex with men in past 12 months; (5) 18–30; (6) negative HIV serostatus (if known). | Not reported | Tu Amigo Pepe: Spanish‐language radio PSAs, a Web site, social media outreach, a mobile phone reminder system, print materials, posters in stores frequented by Latinos, and a free hotline | Not applicable | Self‐reported HIV testing rates, intention, experiential attitude, instrumental attitude, self‐efficacy, and norms towards HIV testing | Evidence of a positive effect on HIV testing itself |
| Tang | To compare the effectiveness of a crowdsourced intervention versus a health marketing intervention to promote first‐time HIV testing among men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender individuals in China | RCT | Online banner advertisement recruitment. Individuals were screened for eligibility, enrolled, and completed the survey then randomly assigned to either watch the crowdsourced video or the health marketing video. Follow‐up text message 3 weeks after survey completion asking about HIV test uptake and test result. | Total = 721 crowdsourced intervention = 352; health marketing intervention = 369 | Born biologically male, having had anal sex with a man at least once, ≥16 years, never tested for HIV, provide valid mobile number. | Duplicated mobile numbers were excluded | The 1‐min video depicted two Chinese men embarking on a relationship and testing for HIV together. The 1‐min health marketing video used a cartoon storyline to provide HIV education and promoting HIV testing. | Not applicable | Self‐reported first‐time HIV testing | Evidence of a positive effect on HIV testing itself |
| Thackeray | Provided illustrative example of the use of Social marketing theory in two case study interventions | Case study/illustrative example | Two case studies; illustrative example using social marketing theory on HIV testing intervention | Two examples | Not reported | Not reported | One on mental health, second ‘You Know Different’ – large‐scale intervention focused on increasing HIV testing among African American youth. | Not applicable | HIV testing rates | Evidence of a positive effect on HIV testing itself |
| West, Okecha, and Forbes ( | To review advertising strategies used and numbers of clients who requested POCT during NHTW. | Non‐comparative study | Grindr advertisements within 5 miles of clinics contained link to website including a video demonstrating POCT. Electronic records of those attending for POCT and activity data from software clinic | 43 asymptomatic attendees | Not reported | Not reported | Grindr users within 5 miles, received link to website with POCT video, Poster interventions were also in place at the time | Not applicable | Clinic‐based testing rates and number of visits to website. | Evidence of a positive effect on HIV testing itself |
| Wilkinson | To explore the effectiveness of DDU to increase HIV, syphilis, gonorrhoea, and chlamydia testing among MSM. | Cross‐sectional study | Survey data: Surveyed annually between September 2008 and August 2014. Recruitment sites varied over time, included gay venues and community events, gay sporting clubs, gay online dating sites, social media, and snowballing. Surveillance Data: The Victorian Primary Care Network for Sentinel Surveillance (VPCNSS) gathered during specific periods | 1228 MSM (survey 4: | Males, self‐identifying as Gay/MSM, ≥18 years, completing 3+ surveys between December 2010 and August 2014. | Evaluation cohort: recruited pre‐December 2010, completed <3 surveys, self‐reported HIV positive. Surveillance data: Tests within 30 days of a previous test and those indicated for HIV post‐exposure prophylaxis. | Drama down under: aimed to improve screening rates and knowledge of HIV/STIs and to reduce HIV/STIs transmission among MSM. Intervention was focused on ‘inner metropolitan Melbourne’ and included outdoor media, digital media (e.g., banners on dating Web sites), and print gay media, supported by a range of intervention material (e.g., postcards, pamphlets, fridge magnets, and underwear). | Not applicable | Evaluation Cohort: self‐reported HIV test in the previous 12 months, number of partners, sex with casual partners, reporting condomless sex with casual partner, recall of intervention, and its message. Surveillance Data: HIV/STI monthly testing rates | No evidence of a positive/negative effect |
Theoretical Domains Framework constructs, behaviour change technique (BCT) groupings, and individual BCTs identified from intervention descriptions
| Explicit theoretical basis | Theoretical domains identified from intervention descriptions | Agreed groups of BCTs within intervention description | Agreed individual BCTs within intervention description | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blas | Health Belief Model | Knowledge | 3. Social Support | 3.1 Social Support (unspecified) |
| 3.3 Social Support (emotional) | ||||
| Social/Professional role and identity | 4. Shaping Knowledge | 4.1 Instruction on how to perform behaviour | ||
| Beliefs about consequences | 5. Natural consequences | 5.1 Information about health consequence | ||
| 5.6 Information about emotional consequences | ||||
| Environmental context and resources | 6. Comparison of behaviour | 6.1 Demonstration of the behaviour | ||
| 6.2 Social comparison | ||||
| Social influences | 9. Comparison of outcomes | 9.1 Credible source | ||
| Emotions | 11. Regulation | 11.2 Reduce negative emotions | ||
| 12. Antecedents | 12.2 Restructuring the social environment | |||
| Brady | Not reported | Beliefs about consequences | 4. Shaping Knowledge | 4.1 Instruction on how to perform behaviour |
| 5. Natural consequences | 5.1 Information about health consequences | |||
| Intentions | 6. Comparison of behaviour | 6.2 Social comparison | ||
| Social influences | 9. Comparison of outcomes | 9.1 Credible source | ||
| 12. Antecedents | 12.2 Restructuring the social environment | |||
| 12.5 Adding objects to the environment | ||||
| Chiasson | Developmental, social, and cognitive constructivist learning theories and strategies | Knowledge | 1. Goals and planning | 1.2 Problem solving |
| Social/Professional role and identity | 5. Natural consequences | 5.1 Information about health consequences | ||
| 5.3 Information about social and environmental consequences | ||||
| Beliefs about consequences | 9. Comparison of outcomes | 9.2 Pros and cons | ||
| 9.3 Comparative imagining of future outcomes | ||||
| Social influences | 16. Covert learning | 16.3 Vicarious consequences | ||
| Emotions | ||||
| Erausquin | Not reported | Knowledge | 4. Shaping Knowledge | 4.1 Instruction on how to perform behaviour |
| Social/Professional role and identity | 7. Associations | 7.1 Prompts and cues | ||
| Environmental context and resources | 9. Comparison of outcomes | 9.1 Credible source | ||
| Social influences | 10. Reward and Threat | 10.1 Material incentive (behaviour) | ||
| 10.2 Material reward (behaviour) | ||||
| 10.8 Incentive (outcome) | ||||
| 10.10 Reward (outcome) | ||||
| Flowers, Knussen, et al. ( | Not reported | Knowledge | 4. Shaping Knowledge | 4.1 Instruction on how to perform behaviour |
| Social/Professional role and identity | 5. Natural consequences | 5.1 Information about health consequences | ||
| Beliefs about consequences | 7. Associations | 7.1 Prompts and cues | ||
| Environmental context and resources | 9. Comparison of outcomes | 9.1 Credible source | ||
| 12. Antecedents | 12.5 Adding objects to the environment | |||
| Gilbert | Not reported | 4. Shaping Knowledge | 4.1 Instruction on how to perform behaviour | |
| 9. Comparison of outcomes | 7.1 Prompts and cues | |||
| 7. Associations | 9.1 Credible Source | |||
| Knowledge | 12. Antecedents | 12.5 Adding objects to the environment | ||
| Social/Professional role and identity | ||||
| Beliefs about consequences | ||||
| Beliefs about capabilities | ||||
| Environmental context and resources | ||||
| Social influences | ||||
| Guy | Not reported | Knowledge | 3. Social Support | 3.1 Social Support (unspecified) |
| Social/Professional role and identity | 4. Shaping Knowledge | 4.1 Instruction on how to perform behaviour | ||
| Beliefs about consequences | 5. Natural consequences | 5.1 Information about health consequences | ||
| Environmental context and resources | 9. Comparison of outcomes | 9.1 Credible source | ||
| 12. Antecedents | 12.5 Adding objects to the environment | |||
| Hickson | Not reported | Knowledge | 1. Goals and planning | 1.4 Action planning |
| Beliefs about capabilities | 4. Shaping Knowledge | 4.1 Instruction on how to perform behaviour | ||
| Intentions | 9. Comparison of outcomes | 9.1 Credible source | ||
| Goals | ||||
| Behavioural regulation | ||||
| Hilliam and Fraser ( | Not reported | Knowledge | 4. Shaping Knowledge | 4.1 Instruction on how to perform behaviour |
| Beliefs about consequences | 5. Natural consequences | 5.1 Information about health consequences | ||
| Memory, attention, and decision processes | 9. Comparison of outcomes | 9.1 Credible source | ||
| Environmental context and resources | ||||
| Hirshfield | Social learning theory, situated cognition, and developmental learning theory | Knowledge | 1. Goals and planning | 1.2 Problem solving |
| Social/Professional role and identity | 3. Social Support | 3.3 Social support (emotional) | ||
| Memory, attention, and decision processes | 4. Shaping Knowledge | 4.1 Instruction on how to perform behaviour | ||
| Social influences | 5. Natural consequences | 5.1 Information about health consequences | ||
| 5.2 Salience of consequences | ||||
| 5.3 Information about social and environmental consequences | ||||
| Emotions | 6. Comparison of behaviour | 6.1 Demonstration of the behaviour | ||
| 6.2 Social comparison | ||||
| 9. Comparison of outcomes | 9.1 Credible source | |||
| 9.2 Pros and cons | ||||
| 13. Identity | 13.1 Identification of self as role model | |||
| 16. Covert learning | 16.3 Vicarious consequences | |||
| James ( | Not reported | Knowledge | 4. Shaping Knowledge | 4.1 Instruction on how to perform behaviour |
| Social/Professional role and identity | 5. Natural consequences | 5.1 Information about health consequences | ||
| Beliefs about capabilities | 6. Comparison of behaviour | 6.2 Social comparison | ||
| Beliefs about consequences | 9. Comparison of outcomes | 9.1 Credible source | ||
| Environmental context and resources | ||||
| McOwan | Not reported | Knowledge | 3. Social Support | 3.1 Social Support (unspecified) |
| 3.3 Social Support (emotional) | ||||
| Social/Professional role and identity | 4. Shaping Knowledge | 4.1 Instruction on how to perform behaviour | ||
| Beliefs about consequences | 5. Natural consequences | 5.1 Information about health consequences | ||
| 5.3 Information about social and environmental consequences | ||||
| 5.6 Information about emotional consequences | ||||
| Environmental context and resources | 6. Comparison of behaviour | 6.2 Social comparison | ||
| Social influences | 9. Comparison of outcomes | 9.1 Credible source | ||
| 9.2 Pros and cons | ||||
| 9.3 Comparative imagining of future outcomes | ||||
| 12. Antecedents | 12.5 Adding objects to the environment | |||
| Pedrana | Not reported | Knowledge | 4. Shaping Knowledge | 4.1 Instruction on how to perform behaviour |
| Social/Professional role and identity | 5. Natural consequences | 5.1 Information about health consequences | ||
| Beliefs about capabilities | 7. Associations | 7.1 Prompts and cues | ||
| Environmental context and resources | 9. Comparison of outcomes | 9.1 Credible source | ||
| 9.3 Comparative imagining of future outcomes | ||||
| Social influences | 12. Antecedents | 12.5 Adding objects to the environment | ||
| Emotions | 13. Identity | 13.2 Framing/reframing | ||
| Prati | Prospect Theory | Knowledge | 3. Social Support | 3.1 Social support (unspecified) |
| 3.2 Social support (practical) | ||||
| In‐group identity theory | Social/Professional role and identity | 4. Shaping Knowledge | 4.1 Instruction on how to perform behaviour | |
| Social identity theory | Beliefs about consequences | 5. Natural consequences | 5.1 Information about health consequences | |
| 5.3 Information about social and environmental consequences | ||||
| Social influences | 6. Comparison of behaviour | 6.2 Social comparison | ||
| Emotions | 9. Comparison of outcomes | 9.1 Credible source | ||
| 13. Identity | 13.2 Framing/reframing | |||
| 16. Covert learning | 16.3 Vicarious consequences | |||
| Solorio | Integrated behavioural model | Knowledge | 4. Shaping Knowledge | 4.1 Instruction on how to perform behaviour |
| Social/Professional role and identity | 5. Natural consequences | 5.3 Information about social and emotional consequences | ||
| Beliefs about consequences | 9. Comparison of outcomes | 9.1 Credible source | ||
| 9.2 Pros and cons | ||||
| Environmental context and resources | 13. Identity | 13.1 Identification of self as role model | ||
| 13.2 Framing/reframing | ||||
| Social influences | 16. Covert learning | 16.3 Vicarious consequences | ||
| Emotions | ||||
| Tang | Not reported | Knowledge | 1. Goals and planning | 1.9 Commitment |
| Social/Professional role and identity | 3. Social Support | 3.2 Social support (practical) | ||
| Beliefs about consequences | 4. Shaping Knowledge | 4.1 Instruction on how to perform behaviour | ||
| Social influences | 5. Natural consequences | 5.1 Information about health consequences | ||
| 5.3 Information about social and environmental consequences | ||||
| 5.6 Information about emotional consequences | ||||
| Emotions | 6. Comparison of behaviour | 6.1 Demonstration of the behaviour | ||
| 6.3 information about others’ approval | ||||
| 8. Repetition and Substitution | 8.2 Behaviour substitution | |||
| 9. Comparison of outcomes | 9.1 Credible source | |||
| 12. Antecedents | 12.2 Restructuring the social environment | |||
| 16. Covert learning | 16.3 Vicarious consequences | |||
| Thackeray, Keller, Messenger, Lee Dellinger ( | Not reported | Social/Professional role and identity | 4. Shaping Knowledge | 4.1 Instruction on how to perform behaviour |
| Beliefs about consequences | 5. Natural consequences | 5.1 Information about health consequences | ||
| Environmental context and resources | 9. Comparison of outcomes | 9.1 Credible source | ||
| Social influences | 12. Antecedents | 12.5 Adding objects to the environment | ||
| 13. Identity | 13.2 Framing/reframing | |||
| West | Not reported | Knowledge | 4. Shaping Knowledge | 4.1 Instruction on how to perform behaviour |
| Social/Professional role and identity | 6. Comparison of behaviour | 6.1 Demonstration of the behaviour | ||
| Beliefs about consequences | 7. Associations | 7.1 Prompts and cues | ||
| Environmental context and resources | 9. Comparison of outcomes | 9.1 Credible source | ||
| Wilkinson | Not reported | Knowledge | 4. Shaping Knowledge | 4.1 Instruction on how to perform behaviour |
| 5. Natural consequences | 5.1 Information about health consequences | |||
| 9. Comparison of outcomes | 9.1 Credible source |