Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Despite Leventhal et al. (2016) providing a 50-year overview of their Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSM), they fail to cite the null findings in relation to the CSM and adherence, as found by at least two reviews (Brandes & Mullan, 2014; Law et al., 2014).
Brandes and Mullan (2014) meta-analysed 23 datasets from 30 studies in chronically ill populations (26 studies concerned medication adherence) and assessed the CSM with adherence as the outcome. The results were stark, with effect sizes (r+) ranging from −0.02 [causal (95 % CI −0.17 to 0.16) and emotional (95 % CI −0.07 to 0.03) representations] to only 0.12 [treatment control (95 % CI 0.05–0.19) and personal control (95 % CI 0.06–0.18)]. Moderate to high heterogeneity was also evident for all dimensions apart from timeline, coherence and emotional representations, with funnel plots indicative of bias. These results are not supportive of the CSM for predicting adherence, in contrast to the conclusions of Leventhal et al., which cites other meta-analyses, but not this evidence or indeed that of Law et al. (2014).
Psychology has significant reproducibility issues (Open Science Collaboration, 2015), with substantial evidence of biased literatures (e.g. Donnelly et al., 2015; Ferguson & Heene, 2012; Open Science Collaboration, 2015). Ignoring the findings of well-conducted systematic reviews, in favour of selected, supportive studies, does not provide sufficient support for any theory (Ferguson & Heene, 2012; Ioannidis, 2005). It also reduces our credibility with other professions (Johnston, 2016; Open Science Collaboration, 2015). The CSM should be robust to meta-analytic investigations.
References
Brandes, K., & Mullan, B. (2014). Can the common-sense model predict adherence in chronically ill patients? A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 8, 129–153. doi:10.1080/17437199.2013.820986
Donnelly, N. A., Hickey, A., Burns, A., Murphy, P., & Doyle, F. (2015). Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of carer stress on subsequent institutionalisation of community dwelling older people. PLoS One, 10, e0128213. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0128213
Ferguson, C. J., & Heene, M. (2012). A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 555–561. doi:10.1177/1745691612459059
Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med, 2, e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Johnston, M. (2016). A science for all reasons: A comment on Ogden (2016). Health Psychology Review, 10, 256–259. doi:10.1080/17437199.2016.1190292
Law, G. U., Tolgyesi, C. S., & Howard, R. A. (2014). Illness beliefs and self-management in children and young people with chronic illness: A systematic review. Health Psychology Review, 8, 362–380. doi:10.1080/17437199.2012.747123
Leventhal, H., Phillips, L. A., & Burns, E. (2016). The Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSM): A dynamic framework for understanding illness self-management. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. doi:10.1007/s10865-016-9782-2
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, aac4716. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Doyle, F., Mullan, B. Does the CSM really provide a consistent framework for understanding self-management?. J Behav Med 40, 372 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-016-9806-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-016-9806-y