Predicting intentions and behaviours in populations with or at-risk of diabetes: A systematic review

View/ Open
File version
Version of Record (VoR)
Author(s)
Akbar, H
Anderson, D
Gallegos, D
Griffith University Author(s)
Year published
2015
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Purpose
To systematically review the Theory of Planned Behaviour studies predicting self-care intentions and behaviours in populations with and at-risk of diabetes.
Methods
A systematic review using six electronic databases was conducted in 2013. A standardised protocol was used for appraisal. Studies eligibility included a measure of behaviour for healthy eating, physical activity, glucose monitoring, medication use (ii) the TPB variables (iii) the TPB tested in populations with diabetes or at-risk.
Results
Sixteen studies were appraised for testing the utility of the TPB. Studies included cross-sectional (n = 7); prospective ...
View more >Purpose To systematically review the Theory of Planned Behaviour studies predicting self-care intentions and behaviours in populations with and at-risk of diabetes. Methods A systematic review using six electronic databases was conducted in 2013. A standardised protocol was used for appraisal. Studies eligibility included a measure of behaviour for healthy eating, physical activity, glucose monitoring, medication use (ii) the TPB variables (iii) the TPB tested in populations with diabetes or at-risk. Results Sixteen studies were appraised for testing the utility of the TPB. Studies included cross-sectional (n = 7); prospective (n = 5) and randomised control trials (n = 4). Intention (18%–76%) was the most predictive construct for all behaviours. Explained variance for intentions was similar across cross-sectional (28–76%); prospective (28–73%); and RCT studies (18–63%). RCTs (18–43%) provided slightly stronger evidence for predicting behaviour. Conclusions Few studies tested predictability of the TPB in populations with or at-risk of diabetes. This review highlighted differences in the predictive utility of the TPB suggesting that the model is behaviour and population specific. Findings on key determinants of specific behaviours contribute to a better understanding of mechanisms of behaviour change and are useful in designing targeted behavioural interventions for different diabetes populations.
View less >
View more >Purpose To systematically review the Theory of Planned Behaviour studies predicting self-care intentions and behaviours in populations with and at-risk of diabetes. Methods A systematic review using six electronic databases was conducted in 2013. A standardised protocol was used for appraisal. Studies eligibility included a measure of behaviour for healthy eating, physical activity, glucose monitoring, medication use (ii) the TPB variables (iii) the TPB tested in populations with diabetes or at-risk. Results Sixteen studies were appraised for testing the utility of the TPB. Studies included cross-sectional (n = 7); prospective (n = 5) and randomised control trials (n = 4). Intention (18%–76%) was the most predictive construct for all behaviours. Explained variance for intentions was similar across cross-sectional (28–76%); prospective (28–73%); and RCT studies (18–63%). RCTs (18–43%) provided slightly stronger evidence for predicting behaviour. Conclusions Few studies tested predictability of the TPB in populations with or at-risk of diabetes. This review highlighted differences in the predictive utility of the TPB suggesting that the model is behaviour and population specific. Findings on key determinants of specific behaviours contribute to a better understanding of mechanisms of behaviour change and are useful in designing targeted behavioural interventions for different diabetes populations.
View less >
Journal Title
Preventive Medicine Reports
Volume
2
Copyright Statement
© 2015 Preventive Medicine Reports. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, providing that the work is properly cited.
Subject
Clinical sciences not elsewhere classified