Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Integrating knowledge across domains to advance the science of health behavior: overcoming challenges and facilitating success

  • Essay
  • Published:
Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Health behaviors often co-occur and have common determinants at multiple levels (e.g., individual, relational, environmental). Nevertheless, research programs often examine single health behaviors without a systematic attempt to integrate knowledge across behaviors. This paper highlights the significant potential of cross-cutting behavioral research to advance our understanding of the mechanisms and causal factors that shape health behaviors. It also offers suggestions for how researchers could develop more effective interventions. We highlight barriers to such an integrative science along with potential steps that can be taken to address these barriers. With a more nuanced understanding of health behavior, redundancies in research can be minimized, and a stronger evidence base for the development of health behavior interventions can be realized.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dart H, Wolin KY, Colditz GA. Commentary: eight ways to prevent cancer: a framework for effective prevention messages for the public. Cancer Causes Control. 2012; 23(4): 601–608.

  2. Jessor R, Jessor SL. Problem Behavior and Psychosocial Development: a Longitudinal Study of Youth. New York: Academic Press; 1997.

  3. Land SR, Cronin WM, Wickerham DL, et al. Cigarette smoking, obesity, physical activity, and alcohol use as predictors of chemoprevention adherence in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Breast Cancer Prevention Trial. Cancer Prev Res. 2011; 4: 1393–1400.

  4. Bartoshuk LM. Psychophysical advances aid the study of genetic variation in taste. Appetite. 2000; 34(1): 105.

  5. Muraven M, Baumeister RF. Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychol Bull. 2000; 126(2): 247–259.

  6. Story GW, Vlaev I, Seymour B, Darzi A, Dolan RJ. Does temporal discounting explain unhealthy behavior? A systematic review and reinforcement learning perspective. Front Behav Neurosci. 2014; 8: 76.

  7. Kant AK, Graubard BI. Secular trends in patterns of self-reported food consumption of adult Americans: NHANES 1971–1975 to NHANES 1999–2002. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006; 84(5): 1215–1223.

  8. Lynch JW, Kaplan GA, Salonen JT. Why do poor people behave poorly? Variation in adult health behaviours and psychosocial characteristics by stages of the socioeconomic lifecourse. Soc Sci Med. 1997; 44(6): 809–819.

  9. Sargent JD. Smoking in movies: impact on adolescent smoking. Adolesc Med Clin. 2005; 16(2): 345–370, ix.

  10. Stock ML, Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, et al. Racial identification, racial composition, and substance use vulnerability among African American adolescents and young adults. Health Psychol. 2013; 32(3): 237–247.

  11. Chaloupka FJ, Straif K, Leon ME, Working Group IAfRoC. Effectiveness of tax and price policies in tobacco control. Tob Control. 2011; 20(3): 235–238.

  12. Grunberg NE. Cigarette smoking and body weight: information may be hazardous to your health. Tob Control. 1997; 6(2): 80.

  13. Ockene JK, Emmons KM, Mermelstein RJ, et al. Relapse and maintenance issues for smoking cessation. Health Psychol. 2000; 19(1 Suppl): 17–31.

  14. Blaze-Temple D, Lo SK. Stages of drug use: a community survey of Perth teenagers. Br J Addict. 1992; 87(2): 215–225.

  15. Humphrey LL, Deffebach M, Pappas M, et al. Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: a systematic review to update the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2013; 159(6): 411–420.

  16. Ory MG, Jordan PJ, Bazzarre T. The Behavior Change Consortium: setting the stage for a new century of health behavior-change research. Health Educ Res. 2002; 17(5): 500–511.

  17. Wilson K, Senay I, Durantini M, et al. When it comes to lifestyle recommendations, more is sometimes less: a meta-analysis of theoretical assumptions underlying the effectiveness of interventions promoting multiple behavior domain change. Psychol Bull. 2015; 141(2): 474–509.

  18. Michie S, West R, Spring B. Moving from theory to practice and back in social and health psychology. Health Psychol. 2013; 32(5): 581–585.

  19. Noar SM, Chabot M, Zimmerman RS. Applying health behavior theory to multiple behavior change: considerations and approaches. Prev Med. 2008; 46(3): 275–280.

  20. Noar SM, Zimmerman RS. Health behavior theory and cumulative knowledge regarding health behaviors: are we moving in the right direction? Health Educ Res. 2005; 20(3): 275–290.

  21. Head KJ, Noar SM. Facilitating progress in health behaviour theory development and modification: the reasoned action approach as a case study. Health Psychol Rev. 2014; 8(1): 34–52.

  22. Weinstein ND. Misleading tests of health behavior theories. Ann Behav Med. 2007; 33(1): 1–10.

  23. Noar SM, Mehrotra P. Toward a new methodological paradigm for testing theories of health behavior and health behavior change. Patient Educ Couns. 2011; 82(3): 468–474.

  24. Seidenberg AB, Mahalingam-Dhingra A, Weinstock MA, Sinclair C, Geller AC. Youth indoor tanning and skin cancer prevention: lessons from tobacco control. Am J Prev Med. 2015; 48(2): 188–194.

  25. Transdisciplinary Research on Energetics and Cancer (TREC). https://www.trecscience.org/trec/default.aspx. Accessed 10/9/2015.

  26. Riddle M, Science of Behavior Change Working Group. News from the NIH: using an experimental medicine approach to facilitate translational research. Transl Behav Med. 2015; 5(4): 486.

  27. Czajkowski SM, Powell LH, Adler N, et al. From ideas to efficacy: the ORBIT model for developing behavioral treatments for chronic diseases. Health Psychol. 2015; 34(10): 971–982.

  28. Klein WMP, Shepperd JA, Suls J, Rothman AJ, Croyle RT. Realizing the promise of social psychology in improving public health. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2015; 19(1): 77–92.

  29. Gold J, Aitken CK, Dixon HG, et al. A randomised controlled trial using mobile advertising to promote safer sex and sun safety to young people. Health Educ Res. 2011; 26(5): 782–794.

  30. Zoellner J, Connell C, Madson MB, et al. HUB city steps: a 6-month lifestyle intervention improves blood pressure among a primarily African-American community. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2014; 114(4): 603–612.

  31. Spring B, Schneider K, McFadden HG, et al. Multiple behavior changes in diet and activity: a randomized controlled trial using mobile technology. Arch Intern Med. 2012; 172(10): 789–796.

  32. Ryan RM, Patrick H, Deci EL, Williams GC. Facilitating health behaviour change and its maintenance: interventions based on self-determination theory. Eur Health Psychol. 2008; 10: 2–5.

  33. Silva MN, Vieira PN, Coutinho SR, et al. Using self-determination theory to promote physical activity and weight control: a randomized controlled trial in women. J Behav Med. 2010; 33(2): 110–122.

  34. Teixeira PJ, Carraca EV, Markland D, Silva MN, Ryan RM. Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012; 9: 78.

  35. Williams GC, McGregor H, Sharp D, et al. A self-determination multiple risk intervention trial to improve smokers' health. J Gen Intern Med. 2006; 21(12): 1288–1294.

  36. Higgins ET, Cesario J, Hagiwara N, Spiegel S, Pittman T. Increasing or decreasing interest in activities: the role of regulatory fit. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010; 98(4): 559–572.

  37. Cesario J, Grant H, Higgins ET. Regulatory fit and persuasion: transfer from “feeling right.” J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004; 86(3): 388–404.

  38. Park SY. The effects of message framing and risk perceptions for HPV vaccine campaigns: focus on the role of regulatory fit. Health Mark Q. 2012; 29(4): 283–302.

  39. Ferrer RA, Green PA, Barrett LF. Affective science perspectives on cancer control: strategically crafting a mutually beneficial research agenda. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015; 10(3): 328–345.

  40. Berg CA, Skinner M, Ko K, et al. The fit between stress appraisal and dyadic coping in understanding perceived coping effectiveness for adolescents with type 1 diabetes. J Fam Psychol. 2009; 23(4): 521–530.

  41. National Health Interview Survey. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm. Accessed 10/9/2015.

  42. Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). http://hints.cancer.gov. Accessed 10/9/2015.

  43. Sayette MA, Reichle ED, Schooler JW. Lost in the sauce: the effects of alcohol on mind wandering. Psychol Sci. 2009; 20(6): 747–752.

  44. Hall K, Vogel A, Stipelman B, Stokols D, Morgan G, Gehlert S. A four-phase model of transdisciplinary team-based research: goals, team processes, and strategies. Transl Behav Med. 2012; 2(4): 415–430.

  45. Stokols D, Misra S, Moser R, et al. The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. Am J Prev Med. 2008; 35(2): S96-S115.

  46. Team Science Toolkit. https://www.teamsciencetoolkit.cancer.gov/Public/Home.aspx. Accessed 9/1/2015.

  47. Hall KL, Stipelman BA, Eddens KS, et al. Advancing collaborative research with 2-1-1 to reduce health disparities: challenges, opportunities, and recommendations. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(6 Suppl 5): S518–528.

  48. Stokes DE. Pasteur’s quadrant: basic science and technological innovation. Brookings Institution; 1997.

  49. Grid-Enabled Measures databases (GEM). http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/gem.html. Accessed 10/9/2015.

  50. National Institutes of Health Basic Behavioral & Social Sciences Research Opportunity Network (OppNet). http://oppnet.nih.gov/. Accessed 9/1/2015.

  51. Science of behavior change. https://commonfund.nih.gov/behaviorchange/index. Accessed 8/3/2015.

  52. Riley WT, Serrano KJ, Nilsen W, Atienza AA. Mobile and wireless technologies in health behavior and the potential for intensively adaptive interventions. Curr Opin Psychol. 2015; 5: 67–71.

  53. Pieper JR, Laugero KD. Preschool children with lower executive function may be more vulnerable to emotional-based eating in the absence of hunger. Appetite. 2013; 62: 103–109.

  54. Estabrooks PA, Boyle M, Emmons KM, et al. Harmonized patient-reported data elements in the electronic health record: supporting meaningful use by primary care action on health behaviors and key psychosocial factors. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012; 19(4): 575–582.

  55. Curran PJ, Hussong AM. Integrative data analysis: the simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets. Psychol Methods. 2009; 14(2): 81–100.

  56. Taplin SH, Anhang Price R, Edwards HM, et al. Introduction: understanding and influencing multilevel factors across the cancer care continuum. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2012;(44): 2–10.

  57. Chwastiak L, Vanderlip E, Katon W. Treating complexity: collaborative care for multiple chronic conditions. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2014; 26(6): 638–647.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The findings reported have not been previously published and the manuscript is not being simultaneously submitted elsewhere.

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and cannot be construed to reflect the views of the National Cancer Institute or the US Federal Government.

This project has been funded with federal funds from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, under contract no. HHSN261200800001E. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government.

No royalty income or other compensation was accepted for this work.

Emily Grenen is now at ICF International. Jennifer Taber is now at Kent State University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Behavioral Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, NIH, DHHS, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 3E140, MSC 9761, Bethesda, MD, 20892-9761, USA

    William M . P. Klein PhD, Emily G. Grenen, Mary O’Connell MA, Wen-Ying Sylvia Chou PhD, MPH, Kara L. Hall PhD & Jennifer M. Taber PhD

  2. Department of Natural and Applied Sciences, Bentley University, Waltham, MA, 02452, USA

    Danielle Blanch-Hartigan PhD, MPH

  3. Clinical Research Directorate/Clinical Monitoring Research Program, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., NCI Campus at Frederick, Frederick, MD, 21702, USA

    Amanda L. Vogel PhD, MHS

Authors
  1. William M . P. Klein PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emily G. Grenen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mary O’Connell MA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Danielle Blanch-Hartigan PhD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wen-Ying Sylvia Chou PhD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kara L. Hall PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jennifer M. Taber PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Amanda L. Vogel PhD, MHS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William M . P. Klein PhD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and animal rights

Human subjects were not used in the development of this manuscript, and the research was not conducted on identifiable human material or data. Animal subjects were not used in the development of this manuscript.

Informed consent

Informed consent is not applicable.

Ethics statement

IRB approval was not warranted as the manuscript contains no ethics considerations, nor was there primary data collection.

Additional information

With the exception of the first three authors (who led the manuscript and/or NCI meeting described herein), order of authorship is alphabetical.

We thank all of the speakers and panelists in the NCI-sponsored meeting on “Leveraging Lessons Learned across Health Behaviors” in November 2014 (Cynthia Berg, David Buller, Meg Gerrard, Frederick Gibbons, Robert Hornik, Michael Sayette, Bonnie Spring, and Geoffrey Williams). We also thank Juanita Cox and Tonza Webb for their assistance with meeting planning, Tracey Goldner for assistance with manuscript preparation, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Implications

Researchers: We suggest that researchers consider getting training and doing research on more than one health behavior to maximize integration.

Practitioners: Attempts to change single health behaviors are likely to be informed by research on different but related behaviors.

Policymakers: Policies designed to influence particular behaviors may be informed by research showing effects of policies on other health behaviors.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Klein, W.M...P., Grenen, E.G., O’Connell, M. et al. Integrating knowledge across domains to advance the science of health behavior: overcoming challenges and facilitating success. Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res. 7, 98–105 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-016-0433-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-016-0433-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation