Health Education Research, Vol. 17, No. 6, 691-695,
December 2002
© 2002 Oxford University Press
COMMENTARY |
The Behavior Change Consortium studies: missed opportunities—individual focus with an inadequate engagement with personhood and socio-economic realities
Editor’s note (J. R. S.)Volume 17, issue 5 of Health Education Research was devoted to the work of the Behavior Change Consortium (BCC) in the United States. Because the BCC approach constitutes one perspective on improving the health of the public, we asked for a Commentary on the BCC approach by Dr Jim Connelly of Leeds University, UK. Below is his perspective on the BCC approach, as well as two responses from BCC members to his critique. We invite commentary, as Letters to the Editor, on this important discussion.
Nuffield Institute for Health, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9PL, UK
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
 |
Introduction |
|---|
The papers and a supportive Commentary in the Behavior Change Consortium (BCC) theme issue of Health Education Research (Volume 17 number 5, 2002) make large claims about the importance of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded BCC studies they report. We are told that not only will the results of these studies supply behavioral change methods with tested interventions, but they will allow us to understand the relative effectiveness of the various underlying theoretical frameworks which will, in turn, allow practitioners to discard redundant theories in favor of what is of proven worth. These claims are of such importance that it may be sensible to ignore some obvious problems and issues in the studies. However, as it turns out, the number and substance of these problems and issues is so extensive that they require a necessarily brief critical discussion.
This critique is not written to represent any particular faction. It
|
Critical issues |
|---|
|
Conclusions |
|---|
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. M. Noar and R. S. Zimmerman Health Behavior Theory and cumulative knowledge regarding health behaviors: are we moving in the right direction? Health Educ. Res., June 1, 2005; 20(3): 275 - 290. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Whitelaw and J. Watson Whither health promotion events? A judicial approach to evidence Health Educ. Res., April 1, 2005; 20(2): 214 - 225. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Connelly, J. Green, L. Lechner, M. B. Mittelmark, A. S. Rigby, and C. Roberts The European Smoking Prevention Framework Approach (ESFA) project: Observations by Six Commentators Health Educ. Res., December 1, 2003; 18(6): 664 - 677. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. E. Glasgow, D. A. Dzewaltowski, P. A. Estabrooks, L. M. Klesges, and S. S. Bull Response to Connelly. Response from the Behavior Change Consortium Representativeness and Translation Work Group: the issue is one of impact, not of world view or preferred approach Health Educ. Res., December 1, 2002; 17(6): 696 - 699. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Connelly Reply to the Behavior Change Consortium researchers: the real issue is health promotion Health Educ. Res., December 1, 2002; 17(6): 704 - 705. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|