Increasing evidence suggests that public health and health-promotion interventions that are based on social and behavioral science theories are more effective than those lacking a theoretical base. This article provides an overview of the state of the science of theory use for designing and conducting health-promotion interventions. Influential contemporary perspectives stress the multiple determinants and multiple levels of determinants of health and health behavior. We describe key types of theory and selected often-used theories and their key concepts, including the health belief model, the transtheoretical model, social cognitive theory, and the ecological model. This summary is followed by a review of the evidence about patterns and effects of theory use in health behavior intervention research. Examples of applied theories in three large public health programs illustrate the feasibility, utility, and challenges of using theory-based interventions. This review concludes by identifying cross-cutting themes and important future directions for bridging the divides between theory, practice, and research.

OBJECTIVES: A randomized school based trial sought to increase fruit and vegetable consumption among children using a multicomponent approach. METHODS: The intervention, conducted in 20 elementary schools in St. Paul, targeted a multiethnic group of children who were in the fourth grade in spring 1995 and the fifth grade in fall 1995. The intervention consisted of behavioral curricula in classrooms, parental involvement, school food service changes, and industry support and involvement. Lunchroom observations and 24-hour food recalls measured food consumption. Parent telephone surveys and a health behavior questionnaire measured psychosocial factors. RESULTS: The intervention increased lunchtime fruit consumption and combined fruit and vegetable consumption, lunchtime vegetable consumption among girls, and daily fruit consumption as well as the proportion of total daily calories attributable to fruits and vegetables. CONCLUSIONS: Multicomponent school-based programs can increase fruit and vegetable consumption among children. Greater involvement of parents and more attention to increasing vegetable consumption, especially among boys, remain challenges in future intervention research.

The Cafeteria Power Plus project examined whether a cafeteria-based intervention would increase the fruit and vegetable (FV) consumption of children. Twenty-six schools were randomly assigned to either an intervention or control condition. Baseline lunch observations of a sample (N = 1668) of first- and third-grade students occurred in the spring of 2000; follow-up was in the spring of 2002. The intervention took place during two consecutive school years beginning in the fall of 2000 and consisted of daily activities (increasing the availability, attractiveness, and encouragement for FV) and special events (kick-offs, samplings, challenge weeks, theater production, and finale meal). Training of food-service staff and cook managers was ongoing throughout the intervention phase. Students in the intervention schools significantly increased their total fruit intake. Process measures indicated that verbal encouragement by food-service staff was associated with outcomes. The outcomes suggest that multicomponent interventions are more powerful than cafeteria programs alone with this age group.

The 5-a-Day Power Plus program targeted multiethnic fourth- and fifth-grade students in 10 intervention and 10 control urban elementary schools in St. Paul, Minnesota, to increase fruit and vegetable consumption. The intervention included behavioral curricula in classrooms, parental involvement, school food service changes, and food industry support. Process evaluation was conducted by using surveys and classroom and lunchroom observations to assess the characteristics of teachers and food service staff, the degree the intervention was implemented as intended, and exteral factors that may have affected the program results. Results showed high levels of participation, dose, and fidelity for all of the intervention components, with the exception of parental involvement. The process evaluation findings help explain why the increase in fruit and vegetable consumption occurred mostly at school lunch and not at home. Future intervention research should focus on creating new and potent strategies for parental involvement and for increasing the appeal and availability of vegetables.

BACKGROUND We wanted to identify differences between diabetic patients who smoke and those who do not smoke to design more effective strategies to improve their diabetes care and encourage smoking cessation.METHODS A random sample of adult health plan members with diabetes were mailed a survey questionnaire, with telephone follow-up, asking about their attitudes and behaviors regarding diabetes care and smoking. Among the 1,352 respondents (response rate 82.4%), we found 188 current smokers whose answers we compared with those of 1,264 nonsmokers, with statistical adjustment for demographic characteristics and duration of diabetes. RESULTSSmokers with diabetes were more likely to report fair or poor health (odds ratio [OR] = 1.5, P = .03) and often feeling depressed (OR = 1.7, P = .004). Relative to nonsmokers, smokers had lower rates of checking blood glucose levels, were less physically active, and had fewer diabetes care visits, glycated hemoglobin (A 1c ) tests, foot examinations, eye examinations, and dental checkups (P ≤.01). Smokers also reported receiving and desiring less support from family and friends for specifi c diabetic self-management activities and had lower readiness to quit smoking than has been observed in other population groups.CONCLUSIONS Clinicians should be aware that diabetic patients who smoke are more likely to report often feeling depressed and, even after adjusting for depression, are less likely to be active in self-care or to comply with diabetes care recommendations. Diabetic patients who smoke are special clinical challenges and are likely to require more creative and consistent clinical interventions and support. INTRODUCTIONS moking has long been known to worsen the prognosis of patients with diabetes. Mulhauser' s literature review in 1990 1 concluded that the frequency of smoking in adults with diabetes was comparable to that in the general population and that smoking is a major risk factor for both macrovascular and microvascular complications. Subsequent systematic reviews have strengthened these conclusions while adding evidence that smoking increases insulin resistance, worsens diabetes control, and may even induce the disease.2,3 Many cross-sectional and prospective studies of patients who have diabetes also show that cardiovascular and all-cause mortality is higher in those who smoke than in those who do not smoke. [4][5][6][7] Thus, the 1 in 5 persons with diabetes who also smoke represent a particularly important target for intervention, both by clinicians and by policy makers in health plans and public health.Despite this information, and despite strong evidence that clinician support of smoking cessation is effective for smokers among the general population and those with diabetes, [8][9][10] only 58% of patients with diabetes who smoke reported that a physician had ever advised them to stop or cut down on their smoking. In the past, many diabetes care specialists and some professional organizations have concentrated largely on glucose-oriented diabetes ca...