Social cognitive theories used to explain physical activity behavior in adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Preventive medicine 2013-05, Vol.56 (5), p.245-253
• Main Authors: Plotnikoff, Ronald C, Costigan, Sarah A, Karunamuni, Nandini, Lubans, David R
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adolescent Behavior - psychology; Adolescents; Attitude to Health; Biological and medical sciences; Exercise - psychology; Health belief model; Humans; Indexing; Internal Medicine; Medical sciences; Miscellaneous; Motor Activity; Physical activity; Prevention and actions; Psychological Theory; Psychology, Adolescent; Public health. Hygiene; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine; Self Efficacy; Selfdetermination; Social cognitive theories; Social cognitive theory
• ISSN: 0091-7435; 1096-0260
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.01.013

Abstract Purpose To systematically review and examine the explanatory power of key social-cognitive theories used to explain physical activity (PA) intention and behavior, among adolescents. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was performed using the electronic databases Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, SPORTdiscus, EBSCO and Education Resources Information Center, Proquest Education Journals Collection, Science Direct, Web of Science and Scopus for social-cognitive theories (i.e., Health Promotion Model, Theory of Planned Behavior, Theory of Reasoned Action, Protection Motivation Theory, Social Cognitive Theory/Self-Efficacy Theory, Health Belief Model, Self-Determination Theory, Transtheoretical Model) used to explain PA intention and behavior. Related keywords in titles, abstracts, or indexing fields were searched. Results Twenty-three studies satisfied the inclusion criteria and were retained for data extraction and analysis; 16 were cross-sectional studies and seven were longitudinal studies. Most studies employed self-report measures. In general, the models explained greater proportions of variance for intention compared to behavior. The meta-analyses revealed 33% and 48% of the variance respectively for PA and intention were explained by social cognitive models. Conclusions Few studies have tested the predictive capacity of social cognitive theories to explain objectively measured PA. The majority of PA variance remains unexplained and more theoretical research is needed.