SBM's two journals, Annals of Behavioral Medicine and Translational Behavioral Medicine: Practice, Policy, Research (TBM), continuously publish online articles, many of which become available before issues are printed. Three recently published Annals and TBM articles are listed below.
SBM members who have paid their 2020 membership dues are able to access the full text of all Annals and TBM online articles via the SBM website by following the steps below.
To check if you are a current SBM member, or if you are having trouble accessing the journals online, please contact the SBM national office at firstname.lastname@example.org or (414) 918-3156.
Social distancing is a key behavior to minimize COVID-19 infections. Identification of potentially modifiable determinants of social distancing behavior may provide essential evidence to inform social distancing behavioral interventions.
The current study applied an integrated social cognition model to identify the determinants of social distancing behavior, and the processes involved, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
In a prospective correlational survey study, samples of Australian (N = 365) and U.S. (N = 440) residents completed online self-report measures of social cognition constructs (attitude, subjective norm, moral norm, anticipated regret, and perceived behavioral control [PBC]), intention, action planning, habit, and past behavior with respect to social distancing behavior at an initial occasion. Follow-up measures of habit and social distancing behavior were taken 1 week later.
Structural equation models indicated that subjective norm, moral norm, and PBC were consistent predictors of intention in both samples. Intention, action planning, and habit at follow-up were consistent predictors of social distancing behavior in both samples. Action planning did not have consistent effects mediating or moderating the intention–behavior relationship. Inclusion of past behavior in the model attenuated effects among constructs, although the effects of the determinants of intention and behavior remained.
Current findings highlight the importance of subjective norm, moral obligation, and PBC as determinants of social distancing intention and intention and habit as behavioral determinants. Future research on long-range predictors of social distancing behavior and reciprocal effects in the integrated model is warranted.
In 2015, Collins and Varmus articulated a vision for precision medicine emphasizing molecular characterization of illness to identify actionable biomarkers to support individualized treatment. Researchers have argued for a broader conceptualization, precision health. Precision health is an ambitious conceptualization of health, which includes dynamic linkages between research and practice as well as medicine, population health, and public health. The goal is a unified approach to match a full range of promotion, prevention, diagnostic, and treatment interventions to fundamental and actionable determinants of health; to not just address symptoms, but to directly target genetic, biological, environmental, and social and behavioral determinants of health.
The purpose of this paper is to elucidate the role of social and behavioral sciences within precision health.
Recent technologies, research frameworks, and methods are enabling new approaches to measure, intervene, and conduct social and behavioral science research. These approaches support three opportunities in precision health that the social and behavioral sciences could colead including: (a) developing interventions that continuously “tune” to each person’s evolving needs; (b) enhancing and accelerating links between research and practice; and (c) studying mechanisms of change in real-world contexts. There are three challenges for precision health: (a) methods of knowledge organization and curation; (b) ethical conduct of research; and (c) equitable implementation of precision health.
Precision health requires active coleadership from social and behavioral scientists. Prior work and evidence firmly demonstrate why the social and behavioral sciences should colead with regard to three opportunity and three challenge areas.
Lauren Connell Bohlen, PhD, Susan Michie, DPhil, Marijn de Bruin, PhD, Alexander J Rothman, PhD, Michael P Kelly, PhD, Hilary N K Groarke, MSc, Rachel N Carey, PhD, Joanna Hale, PhD, Marie Johnston, PhD
Behavioral interventions typically include multiple behavior change techniques (BCTs). The theory informing the selection of BCTs for an intervention may be stated explicitly or remain unreported, thus impeding the identification of links between theory and behavior change outcomes.
This study aimed to identify groups of BCTs commonly occurring together in behavior change interventions and examine whether behavior change theories underlying these groups could be identified.
The study involved three phases: (a) a factor analysis to identify groups of co-occurring BCTs from 277 behavior change intervention reports; (b) examining expert consensus (n = 25) about links between BCT groups and behavioral theories; (c) a comparison of the expert-linked theories with theories explicitly mentioned by authors of the 277 intervention reports.
Five groups of co-occurring BCTs (range: 3–13 BCTs per group) were identified through factor analysis. Experts agreed on five links (≥80% of experts), comprising three BCT groups and five behavior change theories. Four of the five BCT group–theory links agreed by experts were also stated by study authors in intervention reports using similar groups of BCTs.
It is possible to identify groups of BCTs frequently used together in interventions. Experts made shared inferences about behavior change theory underlying these BCT groups, suggesting that it may be possible to propose a theoretical basis for interventions where authors do not explicitly put forward a theory. These results advance our understanding of theory use in multicomponent interventions and build the evidence base for further understanding theory-based intervention development and evaluation.
David X Marquez, Susan Aguiñaga, Priscilla M Vásquez, David E Conroy, Kirk I Erickson, Charles Hillman, Chelsea M Stillman, Rachel M Ballard, Bonny Bloodgood Sheppard, Steven J Petruzzello, Abby C King, Kenneth E Powell
Maintaining or improving quality of life (QoL) and well-being is a universal goal across the lifespan. Being physically active has been suggested as one way to enhance QoL and well-being. In this systematic review, conducted in part for the 2018 U.S. Health and Human Services Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Scientific Advisory Committee Report, we examined the relationship between physical activity (PA) and QoL and well-being experienced by the general population across the lifespan and by persons with psychiatric and neurologic conditions. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses from 2006 to 2018 were used for the evidence base. Strong evidence (predominantly from randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) demonstrated that, for adults aged 18–65 years and older adults (primarily 65 years and older), PA improves QoL and well-being when compared with minimal or no-treatment controls. Moderate evidence indicated that PA improves QoL and well-being in individuals with schizophrenia and Parkinson’s disease, and limited evidence indicated that PA improves QoL and well-being for youth and for adults with major clinical depression or bipolar disorder. Insufficient evidence existed for individuals with dementia because of a small number of studies with mixed results. Future high-quality research designs should include RCTs involving longer interventions testing different modes and intensities of PA in diverse populations of healthy people and individuals with cognitive (e.g., dementia) and mental health conditions (e.g., schizophrenia) to precisely characterize the effects of different forms of PA on aspects of QoL and well-being.
Eric K Layland, Joseph A Carter, Nicholas S Perry, Jorge Cienfuegos-Szalay, Kimberly M Nelson, Courtney Peasant Bonner, H Jonathon Rendina
Stigma against sexual and gender minorities is a major driver of health disparities. Psychological and behavioral interventions that do not address the stigma experienced by sexual and gender minorities may be less efficacious. We conducted a systematic review of existing psychological and behavioral health interventions for sexual and gender minorities to investigate how interventions target sexual and gender minority stigma and consider how stigma could affect intervention efficacy. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Eligible studies were peer reviewed and published in English between January 2003 and July 2019 and reported empirical results of behavioral or psychological interventions implemented among sexual and gender minorities. All interventions addressed stigma. We identified 37 eligible interventions. Most interventions targeted sexual minority men. Interventions were frequently developed or adapted for implementation among sexual and gender minorities and addressed multiple levels and types of stigma. Interventions most frequently targeted proximal stressors, including internalized and anticipated stigma. HIV and mental health were the most commonly targeted health outcomes. A limited number of studies investigated the moderating or mediating effects of stigma on intervention efficacy. The application of an intersectional framework was frequently absent and rarely amounted to addressing sources of stigma beyond sexual and gender minority identities. A growing number of interventions address sexual and gender minority stigma in an effort to prevent deleterious health effects. Future research is needed to assess whether stigma modifies the effectiveness of existing psychological and behavioral interventions among sexual and gender minorities. Further, the application of intersectional frameworks is needed to more comprehensively intervene on multiple, intersecting sources of stigma faced by the diverse sexual and gender minority community.
William T Riley, Dana Greene-Schloesser, Dara R Blachman-Demner, Michael Spittel
The 10th anniversary of Translational Behavioral Medicine, commemorated by this special issue, coincides with the 25th anniversary of the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). OBSSR was enacted by Congress in 1993 and established 2 years later in July 1995 to identify projects of behavioral and social sciences research that should be conducted or supported by the national research institutes and develop such projects in cooperation with such institutes and to coordinate research conducted or supported by the agencies of the NIH . Over the past 25 years, OBSSR has worked diligently to fulfill Congress’s charge. Strategically located within the NIH Office of the Director’s Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives (DPCPSI), OBSSR is well positioned to facilitate collaboration across the NIH by convening NIH staff and extramural investigators, conducting workshops, developing trans-NIH initiatives, and providing cofunding of meritorious grant applications. In this commentary, we highlight some of the key projects led by OBSSR, in collaboration with our colleagues at the various NIH institutes and centers, to advance behavioral and social sciences research conducted or supported by the NIH. We also consider the opportunities and challenges of OBSSR and the behavioral and social sciences in the next 25 years.