An extended theory of planned behavior for parent-for-child health behaviors: A meta-analysis.

Abstract

Objective: To conduct a meta-analysis of studies examining the determinants of behaviors performed by parents to promote the health of their child, termed parent-for-child health behaviors, based on an extended theory of planned behavior. Specifically, the study aimed to meta-analyze correlations among theory of planned behavior constructs, planning, and past behavior, and use them to test theory predictions and effects of salient moderators. Methods: A systematic search identified 46 studies that provided correlations between at least one theory construct and intention or behavior for parent-forchild behaviors. Theory predictions were tested using meta-analytic structural equation modeling. Studies were also coded for candidate moderators of model effects: child age, sample type, time lag between measures of theory constructs and parent-for-child health behavior, study quality, and behavior type, and estimated the proposed model at each level of the moderator. Results: Results supported theory predictions with attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control predicting parent-for-child health behavior participation mediated by intention. Perceived behavioral control and planning also directly predicted behavior, and planning partially mediated effects of intention on behavior. Model effects held when controlling for past behavior, supporting the sufficiency of the theory in this behavioral domain. Few moderator effects were found on relations between theory constructs. Conclusions: Findings identified the social cognition determinants of parent-for-child health behaviors, and highlight the potential processes by which they relate to behavior. The current model signposts potentially modifiable targets for behavioral interventions aimed at fostering parental participation in behaviors that promote the health of their children.

Application of the Health Action Process Approach to Social Distancing Behavior During COVID‐19

“…Findings demonstrate a prominent role for self‐efficacy as the key determinant of intentions, and intentions as the key determinant of behavior across both samples. These findings are in line with applications of the HAPA in multiple health behavioral contexts (Zhang, Zhang, et al, 2019), as well as research on social cognition constructs more broadly (Hamilton, van Dongen, & Hagger, 2020; McEachan et al, 2011). Confidence in engaging in health behaviors and capacity to overcome setbacks and barriers have been consistently linked with future behavioral performance (Warner & French, 2020).…”

“…Confidence in engaging in health behaviors and capacity to overcome setbacks and barriers have been consistently linked with future behavioral performance (Warner & French, 2020). The pervasive effect of intention on behavior is also aligned with a substantive literature on social cognition theories demonstrating intentions as the pre-eminent determinant of behavior (Hamilton, van Dongen, et al, 2020;McEachan et al, 2011). Overall, these effects suggest that social distancing behavior should be conceptualised as a reasoned action.…”

The common sense model of illness self-regulation: a conceptual review and proposed extended model

“…5 Parallels have been drawn between perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy beliefs (Ajzen, 1985). behavior in multiple behavioral contexts (Armitage & Conner, 2001), including health (Hagger, Polet, et al, 2018;Hamilton et al, 2020;McEachan et al, 2011).…”

Using an integrated social cognition model to predict COVID‐19 preventive behaviours

“…In addition, perceived behavioural control is proposed to directly predict behaviour when it closely approximates actual control. Although the extant literature applying the TPB has shown that intentions consistently predict health behaviour and mediate effects of the social cognition constructs on behaviour (Hagger, Chan, Protogerou, & Chatzisarantis, 2016; Hamilton, van Dongen, & Hagger, 2020; McEachan, Conner, Taylor, & Lawton, 2011; Rich et al ., 2015), the intention–behaviour relationship is imperfect (Orbell & Sheeran, 1998; Rhodes & de Bruijn, 2013). Therefore, dual‐phase models of behaviour, such as the HAPA (Schwarzer, 2008; Schwarzer & Hamilton, 2020), propose a post‐intentional volitional phase in which individuals may employ a range of self‐regulatory strategies to enact their intentions.…”