rss
J Epidemiol Community Health 2009;63:610-622 doi:10.1136/jech.2008.078725
  • Essay

Low-income groups and behaviour change interventions: a review of intervention content, effectiveness and theoretical frameworks

  1. S Michie1,
  2. K Jochelson2,
  3. W A Markham3,
  4. C Bridle4
  1. 1
    Research Department of Clinical, Education and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK
  2. 2
    Equality and Human Rights Commission, London, UK
  3. 3
    School of Health and Social Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
  4. 4
    Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
  1. Professor S Michie, Research Department of Clinical, Education and Health Psychology, University College London, 1–19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, UK; s.michie{at}ucl.ac.uk
  • Accepted 2 March 2009
  • Published Online First 21 April 2009

Abstract

Background: Interventions to change health-related behaviours have potential to increase health inequalities.

Methods: This review investigated the effectiveness of interventions targeting low-income groups to reduce smoking or increase physical activity and/or healthy eating. Of 9766 papers identified by the search strategy, 13 met the inclusion criteria. Intervention content was coded into component technique and theoretical basis, and examined as a potential source of effect heterogeneity.

Results: Interventions were heterogeneous, comprising 4–19 techniques. Nine interventions had positive effects, seven resulted in no change and one had an adverse effect. Effective interventions had a tendency to have fewer techniques than ineffective interventions, with no evidence for any technique being generally effective or ineffective. Only six studies cited theory relative to intervention development, with little information about how theory was used and no obvious association with intervention content or effect.

Conclusion: This review shows that behaviour change interventions, particularly those with fewer techniques, can be effective in low-income groups, but highlights the lack of evidence to draw on in informing the design of interventions for disadvantaged groups.

Footnotes

  • Funding: This review was funded by the King’s Fund.

  • Competing interests: None.

Register for free content


Free sample
This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of JECH.
View free sample issue >>

Free archive
The full back archive is now available for JECH. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006, back to volume 1 issue 1.
Register to access the free archive >>

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.