Abstract
This chapter outlines a stepwise approach to implementing behaviour change strategies in chronic disease. In the first part of this chapter, examples of determinants of target behaviours discussed in Chapter 3 are listed, based on case studies developed in the Train4Health project and in the literature. This includes barriers or opportunities (facilitators) for diet, physical activity, smoking cessation and medication adherence. Next, a brief description of approaches to assess key determinants is presented. The second part of this chapter begins with an overview of the classification of behaviour change techniques. Then, we offer guidance for the development of an intervention plan, covering how behaviour change techniques can be implemented in practice, considering potential barriers to the target behaviour, the length of the intervention and the modes through which they can be delivered.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Behaviour determinants
- Assessing behaviour determinants
- Behaviour change techniques
- Taxonomies
- Tailoring behaviour change techniques
- Intervention plan
This chapter contributes to achieving the following learning outcomes:
-
BC3.1 Identify standardised sources of behaviour change techniques (BCTs).
-
BC3.2 Identify core BCTs for the self-management of chronic disease.
-
BC3.3A Provide examples of determinants in selected target behaviours.
-
BC3.3 Explain how behaviour determinants (opportunities and barriers) influence the selection of BCTs.
-
BC3.4 Apply core and supplementary BCTs in different target behaviours.
-
BC4.3 Discuss health behaviour determinants in light of clinical hallmarks, progression and complications of chronic diseases.
-
BC8.2 Demonstrate how to assess behaviour determinants through structured questionnaires, interview and other approaches.
-
BC11.1 Demonstrate critical understanding of BCTs appropriate for brief or long-term behaviour interventions.
4.1 Opportunities and Barriers to Implementing Change in Target Behaviours
4.1.1 Behaviour Determinants
Behaviour is influenced by determinants, as explained in Chap. 2. A key consideration is changeability, i.e. the extent to which determinants can be changed and the impact of those changes in influencing the target behaviour (Hankonen & Hardeman, 2020). Changeable factors that have a strong relationship to the behaviour are potential targets for interventions (Michie et al., 2011), impacting on intervention success (Williams et al., 2019).
Unmodifiable determinants are those that are unchangeable by a behavioural intervention, such as age. They may, however, influence the choice of an appropriate intervention. For instance, unemployment may have a negative influence on physical activity; although this barrier is not amenable to change by a behavioural intervention, it may be useful to tailor it (e.g. recommending strategies that do not involve spending money).
Chapter 3 presented key behaviours for self-management of high-priority chronic diseases, which may be influenced by a plethora of determinants. Examples are provided below for each target behaviour using the COM-B model, presented in Chap. 2. These examples do not intend to be exhaustive; they were collated based on case studies developed in the Train4Health project and the literature. An important consideration is that each person presents a unique combination of behaviour determinants based on morbidities, functional status, activities of daily living, preferences, resources and context. For example, forgetfulness may be a barrier to medication-taking in one person, while for others, not taking the medication may be related to concerns with side effects.
Similar barriers and facilitators may be observed across different target behaviours. For instance, facilitators for healthy diet may include social support or perceived self-efficacy, also identified as facilitators for physical activity.
4.1.1.1 Diet Including Alcohol Intake
Diet and alcohol intake are influenced by the interplay of behavioural, emotional and social factors, in addition to neuroendocrine and genetic influences. Certain religions limit the alcohol use, which can be seen as a facilitator within social opportunity (Kelly et al., 2018), according to the COM-B model. Influence of drinking alcohol habits of spouse/partner/family members/peers (Kelly et al., 2018) is also linked to social opportunity (Kelly et al., 2018). Examples of diet barriers and facilitators are shown in Table 4.1.
4.1.1.2 Physical Activity
Determinants for physical activity behaviour are presented in Table 4.2; examples include work schedule, social support, economic circumstances and energy.
4.1.1.3 Smoking Cessation
Barriers in smoking cessation include systems, organisations and the relationship between systems and individuals, for example, lack of access to smoking cessation programmes. Individual factors also influence quitting smoking such as physical addiction to nicotine. A range of most reported barriers to smoking cessation can be found in literature, such as enjoyment, craving, stress management and withdrawal symptoms. Common smoking cessation determinants are organised in Table 4.3.
4.1.1.4 Medication Adherence
Medication adherence is affected by multiple determinants such as psychosocial, economic and health system factors (Kardas et al., 2013; Kvarnström et al., 2021; Mishra et al., 2021). For instance, a strong network providing social support increases medication adherence, while forgetfulness may contribute to non-adherence (Kardas et al., 2013; Kvarnström et al., 2021). Table 4.4 provides examples of barriers and facilitators of medication adherence.
Clinical hallmarks, progression and complications of chronic diseases should be considered, as they may influence self-management behaviours. For example, the progression of COPD and the existence of dyspnoea on exertion may negatively influence physical activity. Furthermore, it may also be directly related to diet behaviour (e.g. if the person does not have the capability to go to the supermarket frequently due to fatigue, eating healthy food may be compromised).
Another example is a person who had a leg amputation due to type 2 diabetes complications and does not have a prosthesis; this may represent a barrier to specific exercises or physical activity. In the case of retinopathy caused by type 2 diabetes, recognising medicines may become difficult, which may influence how people take them.
In summary, clinical characteristics, progression and complications of chronic diseases, as well as other determinants exemplified previously should be assessed when planning a behaviour change intervention.
4.1.2 Assessing Behaviour Determinants Using Appropriate Measures
The previous section illustrates different determinants that influence target behaviours in the self-management of chronic disease. As already explained, the examples presented do not intend to be exhaustive. While these can be helpful to bear in mind when assessing behaviour determinants, it is equally important not to forget that each person is unique and can present specific barriers and facilitators.
Identifying the key determinants that influence a target behaviour often requires a range of methods and sources. This section summarises approaches to assess determinants in order to guide the intervention plan.
The interview is the most frequent approach in practice to assess behaviour determinants. As explained in Chap. 5 “Communication and Person-Centred Behaviour Change”, the interview ideally starts with open questions, to expand the dialogue and unravel the person’s perspective on barriers and facilitators, and can then move to closed-ended questions, to fine-tune the understanding and clarify details. Possible questions are presented below (Boxes 4.1 and 4.2).
Box 4.1 Example of Open Questions
-
Why have you been having difficulty increasing your fruit consumption?
-
What helps you to take your medication/to increase your physical activity?
-
What do you think is needed to eat fewer carbs and more veggies?
-
What thoughts have you had about increasing walking?
-
What is your biggest barrier to stop smoking?
Box 4.2 Example of Closed-Ended Questions
-
Do you feel confident about managing your medication?
-
Does the cost of healthy foods influence your behaviour?
-
Do stress levels make you crave for a cigarette?
-
Does pain in your knees bother you when walking?
The interview can be supplemented with tools to assess determinants; some tools are behaviour-specific (Table 4.5), while others are disease-specific and ascertain determinants in more than one target behaviour. The Diabetes Self-Efficacy scale is one example of a Likert-type scale with eight items that assess self-efficacy in different target behaviours, such as diet, physical activity and medication-taking (Ritter et al., 2016).
Keyworth et al., (2020) developed a novel six-item questionnaire for self-evaluating people’s perceptions of capabilities, opportunities and motivations based on the COM-B model. This questionnaire is sufficiently generic for any behaviour or population. Respondents rate the level of agreement with the statement (e.g. I have the physical opportunity to change my behaviour to improve my health) on a scale from 0 to 10. Alternative text is presented in italics and can be replaced by a target behaviour such as physical activity or diet. Then, specific barriers or facilitators of behaviour can be explored for each COM-B component.
4.2 Tailoring Behaviour Change Techniques in the Development of an Intervention Plan
4.2.1 Behaviour Change Techniques to Support Chronic Disease Self-Management
To replicate and implement behaviour change interventions in practice, we need an agreed language to report their content. A reliable method has been developed to specify content in terms of behaviour change techniques (BCTs), the active components of a behaviour change intervention. A BCT is “an observable, replicable, and irreducible components of an intervention designed to alter or redirect causal processes that regulate behaviour” (Michie et al., 2013).
Based on a series of consensus exercises, an extensive hierarchically clustered taxonomy of 93 distinct BCTs has been developed (Michie et al., 2013) – BCT Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1). This taxonomy consists of a total of 16 clusters, covering a total of 93 BCTs, together with definitions and illustrative examples. BCTTv1 offers a reliable method for specifying, interpreting and implementing the active ingredients of interventions to change behaviours, which that can be helpful to professionals (Michie et al., 2013).
To facilitate access and support professional practice, a mobile application has been developed with a fully searchable version of BCTTv1 (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/behaviour-change/resources/online-tools-behaviour-change). BCTs can be searched by label or grouping or alphabetically.
BCTs, as active ingredients of the interventions, can take different functions such as education (i.e. increase knowledge or understanding), training (i.e. impart skills) or persuasion (i.e. use communication to induce or negative feelings to stimulate action). The most frequently used BCTs for education are information about health consequences (5.1), information about social and environmental consequences (5.3), feedback on behaviour (2.2), feedback on outcome(s) of behaviour (2.7) and self-monitoring of behaviour (2.3). Informing a person who smokes that the majority of people disapprove of smoking in public places is an example of using a BCT (information about social and environmental consequences 5.3) for education purposes. Explaining the likelihood of increasing the glycated haemoglobin levels (A1C) when adopting an unhealthy lifestyle is another example of a BCT used for education purposes (information about health consequences 5.1). Table 4.6 presents a set of BCTs with accompanying definition and examples (Michie et al., 2013).
For the self-management of chronic diseases, 21 core BCTs were identified from the BCTTv1 based on a literature search in conjunction with behavioural psychologists’ feedback (Guerreiro et al., 2021). The 21 BCTs are common to the 5 target behaviours in the 7 high-priority chronic diseases considered in Chap. 3 (type 2 diabetes, COPD, obesity, heart failure, asthma, hypertension and ischaemic heart disease) and are available at Guerreiro et al. (2021). Additional BCTs were organised in supplementary sets per target behaviour (Guerreiro et al., 2021).
BCTs are designed to enable behaviour change and can do this by augmenting factors that facilitate behaviour change or by mitigating factors that inhibit behaviour change. An illustration of this point is the case of a person with type 2 diabetes who does not believe in her or his ability to increase physical activity. The BCT Graded tasks (8.7) – set easy-to-perform tasks, making them increasingly difficult, but achievable, until behaviour is performed (Michie et al., 2014) – might change the behaviour by increasing the belief about the person’s capabilities. When promoting healthy eating, one might hypothesise that the BCT Restructuring the physical environment (12.1) – change or advise to change the physical environment in order to facilitate performance of the wanted behaviour or create barriers to the unwanted behaviour – might change this behaviour by eliminating the access to a vending machine with unhealthy snacks in the workplace.
Additional classifications of techniques to change behaviour and influence motivation have been developed. A notable example is the compendium of self-enactable techniques (Knittle et al., 2020), developed from existing taxonomies (e.g. BCTTv1, Kok et al., 2016). The compendium contains a list of 123 techniques that can be enacted by the individual, and each technique is presented with a label, a definition, instructive examples on health behaviours, its source, information on whether it requires external inputs (e.g. obtaining information) and prerequisite techniques (e.g. the technique “feedback on behaviour” can only be used if “self-monitoring of behaviour” is in place). This can be a valuable resource for intervention developers and recipients in the context of chronic disease management, e.g. in self-delivered and technology-assisted interventions.
There are benefits of using BCTs provided by a taxonomy in interventions to support behaviour change:
-
To establish a structured link with behaviour determinants, which facilitates intervention tailoring and increases effectiveness.
-
To specify intervention content, facilitating the identification of effective interventions in practice.
-
To enhance the comprehensiveness of interventions in practice, as it is less likely that barriers and facilitators are disregarded when the intervention is tailored to behaviour determinants.
-
To ensure consistency across interventions.
4.2.2 Tailoring Behaviour Change Techniques
Section 4.1, provides examples of behaviour determinants. As pointed out, tailoring the intervention to behaviour barriers increases the likelihood of success (Williams et al., 2019). For example, a pillbox or reminders will do little for a person deciding not to take a medication due to concerns about side effects; such barrier requires techniques increasing knowledge or understanding, such as information about health consequences (5.1), or inducing a feeling to stimulate action, such as pros and cons (9.2). These BCTs consist of, respectively, highlighting the positive and negative consequences of taking the medication and advising the person to compare reasons for wanting and not wanting to perform the behaviour (Michie et al., 2014).
As depicted in Fig. 4.1, tailoring BCTs can be seen as a two-step sequential process. Firstly, choosing BCTs that can potentially be used in the intervention, based on their alignment with behaviour barriers – Step 1 in Fig. 4.1. Secondly, selecting BCTs from this “list” and deciding on operationalisation according to the person’s unique combination of e.g. morbidities, functional status, activities of daily living, preferences and resources – Step 2 in Fig. 4.1.
An important consideration is that it may be unnecessary and potentially inappropriate to deliver all BCTs listed in Step 1. As explained, the patient as a unique person should be considered when selecting a BCT addressing a behaviour barrier. For example, social support may not be suitable for a person living alone and having a restricted social network. Operationalising a selected BCT also requires attention to the patient as a unique person; for instance, advising a person to set reminders in a mobile phone to take the medication – prompts/cues (7.1) – may not be appropriate for older persons unfamiliar with these devices. In such a case, helpful alternatives may include using a post-it.
Another important consideration is about the use of the BCTs alone or in combination change. For example, for a person who forgets to take the medication, the BCT Prompts and cues (7.1) – introduce or define environmental or social stimulus with the purpose of prompting or cueing the behaviour – may be sufficient to overcome this barrier. A combination of BCTs may be needed for a person who has concerns about medication, such asusing information about health consequences (5.1) and pros and cons (9.2) in bundle. The two-step sequential process depicted in Fig. 4.1 aids the decision of suggesting BCTs alone or in combination.
The alignment of BCTs with behaviour barriers is further exemplified in Table 4.7, using the case of physical activity of a fictitious person; the application of BCTs is also exemplified.
4.2.3 Selecting Behaviour Change Techniques According to the Length of the Intervention
The length of the intervention also influences the selection of BCTs. Box 4.3 presents the definition of brief and long-term interventions.
Box 4.3 Definition of Brief and Long-Term Intervention
-
Brief intervention
Intervention delivered in a short interaction between the provider and the individual, often carried out when the opportunity arises, typically taking no more than a few minutes. Although short in duration, a brief intervention can be delivered in several sessions (adapted from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2014)
-
Long-term intervention
Intervention delivered in a longer interaction (e.g. around 30Â minutes) between the provider and the individual, which has a structured plan and consists of multiple sessions over time (adapted from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2014)
To facilitate comprehension, we have further conceptualised BCTs tailoring as a three-step sequential process, adding tailoring of BCTs to the length of the intervention as Step 3 (Fig. 4.2). That said, in practice Steps 2 and 3 can take place simultaneously.
In brief interventions it may not be feasible to use BCTs that require more than one encounter to operationalise. A good illustration is the case of Feedback on outcomes of behaviour (2.7). Let us consider a person living with obesity, who agrees to engage frequently in physical activity and is advised to monitor weigh (self-monitoring of outcome(s) of behaviour 2.4). It may be beneficial to provide feedback on how much weight the person has lost as an outcome of performing physical activity (Feedback on outcome(s) of behaviour 2.7). However, the selection of the latter BCT is not realistic in a brief intervention limited to one encounter or with unknown frequency of encounters. This can also be seen in the case of the BCT Review behaviour goal(s) (1.5), which may not be appropriate in a brief intervention limited to one encounter. However, if the brief intervention is delivered in several sessions, it is possible to use it provided that behaviour goals were previously set (Goal setting behaviour 1.1) and that is appropriate to revise them.
The number of BCTs used in an interaction may differ in a brief and long intervention. Due to the longer duration and structured nature, the latter may encompass a higher number of BCTs, if justified considering the behaviour determinants and person’s unique preferences.
In brief and long interventions, professionals should also consider the modes of delivery of BCTs. Modes of delivery (MoD) are defined as the method(s) by which the content (i.e. BCTs) is brought to the person (Marques et al., 2020); they can influence the effectiveness of the interventions. For example, meta-research found effectiveness to be higher in smoking cessation interventions when the BCTs were delivered in person as opposed to written form (Black et al., 2020).
The modes of delivery are organised in four-level hierarchical structures comprising 65 entities. There are 15 upper-level classes, such as Informational MoD and Environmental change MoD. Each upper-level class includes sub-classes, as represented in Table 4.8 for Informational MoD.
Many factors influence the decision on the modes of delivery, not only the length of the interventions, but also the preferences and needs of the person. The modes of delivery should be considered when developing an intervention plan.
Key Points
-
A plethora of determinants can influence positively or negatively the key self-management behaviours in high-priority chronic diseases.
-
The COM-B model can guide the identification of behaviour determinants.
-
Specific tools and approaches can be useful for assessing behaviour determinants such as Beliefs About Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ), Regulation of Eating Behaviour Scale (REBS) and interview.
-
Behaviour change techniques (BCTs) are the active components of behaviour change interventions.When developing an intervention plan, tailoring BCTs should consider the behaviour determinants identified for the person, her/his unique combination of morbidities, functional status, activities of daily living, preferences, resources and context, and the length of the intervention.
-
When behaviour change techniques are implemented in practice, consideration should also be given to the mode of delivery.
References
Black, N., Eisma, M. C., Viechtbauer, W., Johnston, M., West, R., Hartmann-Boyce, J., et al. (2020). Variability and effectiveness of comparator group interventions in smoking cessation trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Addiction, 115(9), 1607–1617. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14969
Brown, T. J., Twigg, M., Taylor, N., Easthall, C., Hartt, J., Budd, T., … Bhattacharya, D. (2017). Final report for the IMAB-Q study: validation and feasibility testing of a novel questionnaire to identify barriers to medication adherence.
Chean, K. Y., Goh, L. G., Liew, K. W., Tan, C. C., Choi, X. L., Tan, K. C., & Ooi, S. T. (2019). Barriers to smoking cessation: a qualitative study from the perspective of primary care in Malaysia. BMJ Open, 9(7), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025491
Cheng, L. J., Wu, V. X., Dawkes, S., Lim, S. T., & Wang, W. (2019). Factors influencing diet barriers among outpatients with poorly-controlled type 2 diabetes: a descriptive correlational study. Nurs. Health Sci., 21(1), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12569
Cortis, C., Puggina, A., Pesce, C., Aleksovska, K., Buck, C., Burns, C., et al. (2017). Psychological determinants of physical activity across the life course: A “DEterminants of DIet and Physical ACtivity” (DEDIPAC) umbrella systematic literature review. PLoS One, 12(8), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182709
Cradock, K. A., Quinlan, L. R., Finucane, F. M., Gainforth, H. L., Martin Ginis, K. A., de Barros, A. C., et al. (2021). Identifying barriers and facilitators to diet and physical activity behaviour change in type 2 diabetes using a design probe methodology. J. Personalized Med., 11(2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11020072
Félix, I. B., & Henriques, A. (2021). Medication adherence and related determinants in older people with multimorbidity: a cross-sectional study. Nurs. Forum, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12619
Ferra, J. R. M., Vieira, A. C., Carvalho, J. S., Matos, C., & Nogueira, F. (2019). Barriers to smoking cessation: the patient’s perspective. Eur. Respir. J., 54, PA2852. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.congress-2019.pa2852
Guerreiro, M. P., Strawbridge, J., Cavaco, A. M., Félix, I. B., Marques, M. M., & Cadogan, C. (2021). Development of a European competency framework for health and other professionals to support behaviour change in persons self-managing chronic disease. BMC Med. Edu., 21(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02720-w
Hankonen, N., & Hardeman, W. (2020). Developing behavior change interventions. In M. S. Hagger, L. D. Cameron, K. Hamilton, N. Hankonen, & T. Lintunen (Eds.), The handbook of behavior change (pp. 300–317). Cambridge University Press.
Heatherton, T., Kozlowski, L., Frecker, R., & Fagerstrom, K.-O.-O. (1991). The Fagerström test for nicotine dependence: a revision of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire. Br. J. Addict., 86(9), 1119–1127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01879.x
Horne, R., Weinman, J., & Hankins, M. (1999). The beliefs about medicines questionnaire: the development and evaluation of a new method for assessing the cognitive representation of medication. Psychol. Health, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870449908407311
Jackson, C., Eliasson, L., Barber, N., & Weinman, J. (2014). Applying COM-B to medication adherence: a suggested framework for research and interventions. Eur. Health Psychol. Soc., 16(1), 7–17.
Kardas, P., Lewek, P., & Matyjaszczyk, M. (2013). Determinants of patient adherence: a review of systematic reviews. Front. Pharmacol., 4(91), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2013.00091
Kelly, S., Olanrewaju, O., Cowan, A., Brayne, C., & Lafortune, L. (2018). Alcohol and older people: A systematic review of barriers, facilitators and context of drinking in older people and implications for intervention design. PLoS One, 13(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191189
Keyworth, C., Epton, T., Goldthorpe, J., Calam, R., & Armitage, C. J. (2020). Acceptability, reliability, and validity of a brief measure of capabilities, opportunities, and motivations (“COM-B”). Br. J. Health Psychol., 25(3), 474–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12417
Knittle, K., Heino, M., Marques, M. M., Stenius, M., Beattie, M., Ehbrecht, F., et al. (2020). The compendium of self-enactable techniques to change and self-manage motivation and behaviour v.1.0. Nat. Human Behaviour, 4(2), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0798-9
Kok, G., Gottlieb, N. H., Peters, G. J., Mullen, P. D., Parcel, G. S., Ruiter, R. A., Fernández, M. E., Markham, C., & Bartholomew, L. K. (2016). A taxonomy of behaviour change methods: an Intervention Mapping approach. Health Psychol. Rev., 10(3), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2015.1077155
Kvarnström, K., Westerholm, A., Airaksinen, M., & Liira, H. (2021). Factors contributing to medication adherence in patients with a chronic condition: a scoping review of qualitative research. Pharmaceutics, 13(7), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13071100
Marcus, B. H., Selby, V. C., Niaura, R. S., & Rossi, J. S. (1992). Self-efficacy and the stages of exercise behavior change. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport, 63(1), 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1992.10607557
Markland, D., & Ingledew, D. K. (1997). The measurement of exercise motives: factorial validity and invariance across gender of a revised exercise motivations inventory. Br. J. Health Psychol., 2, 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8287.1997.tb00549.x
Marques, M. M., Carey, R. N., Norris, E., Evans, F., Finnerty, A. N., Hastings, J., et al. (2020). Delivering behaviour change interventions: development of a mode of delivery ontology. Wellcome Open Res., 5(125). https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15906.1
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement. Sci., 6(42), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
Michie, S., Richardson, M., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Francis, J., Hardeman, W., et al. (2013). The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann. Behav. Med., 46, 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6
Michie, S., Atkins, L., & West, R. (2014). The behavior change wheel: a guide to designing interventions (First edit). Silverback Publishing.
Mishra, P., Vamadevan, A. S., Roy, A., Bhatia, R., Naik, N., Singh, S., et al. (2021). Exploring barriers to medication adherence using com-b model of behaviour among patients with cardiovascular diseases in low-and middle-income countries: a qualitative study. Patient Prefer. Adherence, 15(June), 1359–1371. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S285442
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2014). NICE Guidance: behaviour change: individual approaches. Retrieved from https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph49
Pelletier, L. G., Dion, S. C., Slovinec-D’Angelo, M., & Reid, R. (2004). Why do you regulate what you eat? Relationships between forms of regulation, eating behaviors, sustained dietary behavior change, and psychological adjustment. Motiv. Emot., 28(3), 245–277. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MOEM.0000040154.40922.14
Pinho, M. G. M., Mackenbach, J. D., Charreire, H., Oppert, J. M., Bárdos, H., Glonti, K., et al. (2018). Exploring the relationship between perceived barriers to healthy eating and dietary behaviours in European adults. Eur. J. Nutr., 57(5), 1761–1770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-017-1458-3
Risser, J., Jacobson, T., & Kripalani, S. (2007). Development and psychometric evaluation of the self-efficacy for appropriate medication use scale (SEAMS) in low-literacy patients with chronic disease. J. Nurs. Meas., 15(3), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1891/106137407783095757
Ritter, P. L., Lorig, K., & Laurent, D. D. (2016). Characteristics of the Spanish- and English-language self-efficacy to manage diabetes scales. Diabetes Edu., 42(2), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721716628648
Seguin, R., Connor, L., Nelson, M., Lacroix, A., & Eldridge, G. (2014). Understanding barriers and facilitators to healthy eating and active living in rural communities. J. Nutr. Metabolism, 2014, 23–25. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/146502
Vlachopoulos, S. P., Ntoumanis, N., & Smith, A. L. (2010). The basic psychological needs in exercise scale: translation and evidence for cross-cultural validity. Int. J. Sport Exercise Psychol., 8(4), 394–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2010.9671960
West, R. & Michie, S. (2020). A brief introduction to the COM-B Model of behaviour and the PRIME Theory of motivation. Qeios. https://doi.org/10.32388/WW04E6.
Williams, D. M., Rhodes, R. E., & Conner, M. T. (2019). Conceptualizing and intervening on affective determinants of health behaviour. Psychol. Health, 34(11), 1267–1281. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2019.1675659
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
FĂ©lix, I.B., Guerreiro, M.P. (2023). Implementing Behaviour Change Strategies. In: Guerreiro, M.P., Brito FĂ©lix, I., Moreira Marques, M. (eds) A Practical Guide on Behaviour Change Support for Self-Managing Chronic Disease. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20010-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20010-6_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-20009-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-20010-6
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)