Health Psychology Review
Journal Impact IF - Analysis · Trend · Prediction · Ranking


New

Journal Impact IF

2019-2020

5.136

-43.4 %

Journal Impact IF Trend

Related Journals

Popular Journals

Health Psychology Review

The 2019-2020 Journal Impact IF of Health Psychology Review is 5.136, which is just updated in 2020.

Health Psychology Review Impact Factor
Highest IF
9.07
Highest Journal Impact IF

The highest Journal Impact IF of Health Psychology Review is 9.07.

Lowest IF
2.062
Lowest Journal Impact IF

The lowest Journal Impact IF of Health Psychology Review is 2.062.

Total Growth Rate
149.1%
IF Total Growth Rate

The total growth rate of Health Psychology Review IF is 149.1%.

Annual Growth Rate
16.6%
IF Annual Growth Rate

The annual growth rate of Health Psychology Review IF is 16.6%.

Journal Impact IF Ranking

Subcategory Quartile Rank Percentile
Psychiatry and Mental Health Q1 9/506

Psychiatry and Mental Health 98%

Clinical Psychology Q1 3/275

Clinical Psychology 99%

Journal Impact IF Ranking

· In the Psychiatry and Mental Health research field, the Quartile of Health Psychology Review is Q1. Health Psychology Review has been ranked #9 over 506 related journals in the Psychiatry and Mental Health research category. The ranking percentile of Health Psychology Review is around 98% in the field of Psychiatry and Mental Health.
· In the Clinical Psychology research field, the Quartile of Health Psychology Review is Q1. Health Psychology Review has been ranked #3 over 275 related journals in the Clinical Psychology research category. The ranking percentile of Health Psychology Review is around 99% in the field of Clinical Psychology.

Health Psychology Review Impact Factor 2020-2021 Prediction

Health Psychology Review Impact Factor Predition System

Health Psychology Review Impact Factor Prediction System is now online. You can start share your valuable insights with the community.

Predict Check All Preditions
Total Publications
365
Total Citations
23806

Annual Publication Volume

Annual Citation Record

International Collaboration Trend

Cited Documents Trend

Journal Impact IF History

Year Journal Impact IF
Year Journal Impact IF
2019-2020 5.136
2018-2019 9.07
2017-2018 8.597
2016-2017 7.241
2015-2016 8.976
2014-2015 6.233
2013-2014 6.75
2012-2013 4.16
2011-2012 2.062
Journal Impact IF History

· The 2019-2020 Journal Impact IF of Health Psychology Review is 5.136
· The 2018-2019 Journal Impact IF of Health Psychology Review is 9.07
· The 2017-2018 Journal Impact IF of Health Psychology Review is 8.597
· The 2016-2017 Journal Impact IF of Health Psychology Review is 7.241
· The 2015-2016 Journal Impact IF of Health Psychology Review is 8.976
· The 2014-2015 Journal Impact IF of Health Psychology Review is 6.233
· The 2013-2014 Journal Impact IF of Health Psychology Review is 6.75
· The 2012-2013 Journal Impact IF of Health Psychology Review is 4.16
· The 2011-2012 Journal Impact IF of Health Psychology Review is 2.062

Publications Cites Dataset

Year Publications Citations
Year Publications Citations
2006 0 5
2008 9 31
2009 5 65
2010 13 179
2011 14 284
2012 13 469
2013 24 798
2014 28 1220
2015 46 1866
2016 40 2138
2017 34 2438
2018 29 2594
2019 29 3257
2020 55 8165
2021 2 297
Publications Cites Dataset

· The Health Psychology Review has published 0 reports and received 5 citations in 2006.
· The Health Psychology Review has published 9 reports and received 31 citations in 2008.
· The Health Psychology Review has published 5 reports and received 65 citations in 2009.
· The Health Psychology Review has published 13 reports and received 179 citations in 2010.
· The Health Psychology Review has published 14 reports and received 284 citations in 2011.
· The Health Psychology Review has published 13 reports and received 469 citations in 2012.
· The Health Psychology Review has published 24 reports and received 798 citations in 2013.
· The Health Psychology Review has published 28 reports and received 1220 citations in 2014.
· The Health Psychology Review has published 46 reports and received 1866 citations in 2015.
· The Health Psychology Review has published 40 reports and received 2138 citations in 2016.
· The Health Psychology Review has published 34 reports and received 2438 citations in 2017.
· The Health Psychology Review has published 29 reports and received 2594 citations in 2018.
· The Health Psychology Review has published 29 reports and received 3257 citations in 2019.
· The Health Psychology Review has published 55 reports and received 8165 citations in 2020.
· The Health Psychology Review has published 2 reports and received 297 citations in 2021.
· The total publications of Health Psychology Review is 365.
· The total citations of Health Psychology Review is 23806.

What is Impact Factor?

The impact factor (IF) or journal impact factor (JIF) of an academic journal is a scientometric index calculated by Clarivate that reflects the yearly average number of citations of articles published in the last two years in a given journal. It is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field; journals with higher impact factor values are often deemed to be more important, or carry more intrinsic prestige in their respective fields, than those with lower values.

Health Psychology Review | Academic Accelerator - About the Impact Factor

Impact factor is commonly used to evaluate the relative importance of a journal within its field and to measure the frequency with which the “average article” in a journal has been cited in a particular time period. Journal which publishes more review articles will get highest IFs. Journals with higher IFs believed to be more important than those with lower ones. According to Eugene Garfield “impact simply reflects the ability of the journals and editors to attract the best paper available.” Journal which publishes more review articles will get maximum IFs. The Impact Factor of an academic journal is a scientometric Metric that reflects the yearly average number of citations that recent articles published in a given journal received. It is frequently used as a Metric for the relative importance of a journal within its field; journals with higher Impact Factor are often deemed to be more important than those with lower ones. The Health Psychology Review Impact Factor IF measures the average number of citations received in a particular year (2020) by papers published in the Health Psychology Review during the two preceding years (2018-2019). Note that 2020 Impact Factor are reported in 2021; they cannot be calculated until all of the 2020 publications have been processed by the indexing agency. New journals, which are indexed from their first published issue, will receive an impact factor after two years of indexing; in this case, the citations to the year prior to Volume 1, and the number of articles published in the year prior to Volume 1, are known zero values. Journals that are indexed starting with a volume other than the first volume will not get an impact factor until they have been indexed for three years. Occasionally, Journal Citation Reports assigns an impact factor to new journals with less than two years of indexing, based on partial citation data. The calculation always uses two complete and known years of item counts, but for new titles one of the known counts is zero. Annuals and other irregular publications sometimes publish no items in a particular year, affecting the count. The impact factor relates to a specific time period; it is possible to calculate it for any desired period. In addition to the 2-year Impact Factor, the 3-year Impact Factor, 4-year Impact Factor, 5-year Impact Factor, Real-Time Impact Factor can provide further insights and factors into the impact of Health Psychology Review.

History

The impact factor was devised by Eugene Garfield, the founder of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). Impact factors are calculated yearly starting from 1975 for journals listed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). ISI was acquired by Thomson Scientific & Healthcare in 1992, and became known as Thomson ISI. In 2018, Thomson ISI was sold to Onex Corporation and Baring Private Equity Asia. They founded a new corporation, Clarivate, which is now the publisher of the JCR.

Use

The impact factor is used to compare different journals within a certain field. The Web of Science indexes more than 11,500 science and social science journals. Journal impact factors are often used to evaluate the merit of individual articles and individual researchers. This use of impact factors was summarised by Hoeffel:

Impact Factor is not a perfect tool to measure the quality of articles but there is nothing better and it has the advantage of already being in existence and is, therefore, a good technique for scientific evaluation. Experience has shown that in each specialty the best journals are those in which it is most difficult to have an article accepted, and these are the journals that have a high impact factor. Most of these journals existed long before the impact factor was devised. The use of impact factor as a measure of quality is widespread because it fits well with the opinion we have in each field of the best journals in our specialty....In conclusion, prestigious journals publish papers of high level. Therefore, their impact factor is high, and not the contrary.

Eugene Garfield

In brief, Impact factors may be used by:
  • Authors to decide where to submit an article for publication.
  • Libraries to make collection development decisions
  • Academic departments to assess academic productivity
  • Academic departments to make decisions on promotion and tenure.
As impact factors are a journal-level metric, rather than an article- or individual-level metric, this use is controversial. Garfield agrees with Hoeffel,but warns about the "misuse in evaluating individuals" because there is "a wide variation [of citations] from article to article within a single journal". Other things to consider about Impact Factors:
  • Many journals do not have an impact factor.
  • The impact factor cannot assess the quality of individual articles. Even if citations were evenly distributed among articles, the impact factor would only measure the interests of other researchers in an article, not its importance and usefulness.
  • Only research articles, technical notes and reviews are “citable” items. Editorials, letters, news items and meeting abstracts are “non-citable items”.
  • Only a small percentage of articles are highly cited and they are found in a small subset of journals. This small proportion accounts for a large percentage of citations.
  • Controversial papers, such as those based on fraudulent data, may be highly cited, distorting the impact factor of a journal.
  • Citation bias may exist. For example, English language resources may be favoured. Authors may cite their own work.
Moreover, informed and careful use of these impact data is essential, and should be based on a thorough understanding of the methodology used to generate impact factors. There are controversial aspects of using impact factors:
  • It is not clear whether the number of times a paper is cited measures its actual quality.
  • Some databases that calculate impact factors fail to incorporate publications including textbooks, handbooks and reference books.
  • Certain disciplines have low numbers of journals and usage. Therefore, one should only compare journals or researchers within the same discipline.
  • Review articles normally are cited more often and therefore can skew results.
  • Self-citing may also skew results.
  • Some resources used to calculate impact factors have inadequate international coverage.
  • Editorial policies can artificially inflate an impact factor.
Impact factors have often been used in advancement and tenure decision-making. Many recognize that this is a coarse tool for such important decisions, and that a multitude of factors should be taken into account in these deliberations. When considering the use of the impact factor (IF), keep these aspects in mind:
  • IF analysis is limited to citations from the journals indexed by the Web of Science/Web of Knowledge. Currently, the Web of Science indexes only 8621 journals across the full breadth of the sciences, and just 3121 in the social sciences.
  • A high IF/citation rate says nothing about the quality -- or even, validity -- of the references being cited. Notorious or even retracted articles often attract a lot of attention, hence a high number of citations. The notority related to the first publication on "cold fusion" is one such example.
  • Journals that publish more "review articles" are often found near the top of the rankings. While not known for publishing new, creative findings, these individual articles tend to be heavily cited.
  • The IF measures the average number of citations to articles in the journal -- given this, a small number of highly-cited articles will skew the figure.
  • It takes several years for new journals to be added to the list of titles indexed by the Web of Science/Web of Knowledge, so these newer titles will be under-represented.
  • It's alleged that journal editors have learned to "game" the system, encouraging authors to cite their works previously published in the same journal.
Comparing Journals Across Disciplines? Not a good idea! Using Impact Factors within a given discipline should only be done with great care, as described above. Using impact factor data to compare journals across disciplines is even more problematic. Here are some of the reasons:
  • Disciplines where older literature is still referenced, such as Chemistry and Mathematics, offer challenges to the methodolgy since older citations (older than two years) are not used to calculate the impact factor for a given journal. (Five-year impact factor analysis, which can be calculated using the Journal Citation Index database, helps smooth out this problem only to some degree.)
  • Different disciplines have different practices regarding tendency to cite larger numbers of references. Higher overall citation rates will bump upward impact factor measurements.
  • Where it's common for large numbers of authors to collaborate on a single paper, such as in Physics, the tendency of authors to cite themselves (and in this case, more authors) will result in increased citation rates.

Pros and Cons of the Impact Factor

Pros:

  • A vetted, established metric for measuring journal impact within a discipline.
  • Designed to eliminate bias based on journal size and frequency.
Cons:
  • Individual articles makes an uneven contribution to overall Impact Factor.
  • Impact Factor does not account for certain things, things like context (postive or negative citaion) and intentionality (self-citation).
  • The metric is proprietary to and bound by the contents of the Thomson Reuters database.
  • Citations, on which the Impact Factor is based, count for less than 1% of an article's overall use.

Criticism

Numerous critiques have been made regarding the use of impact factors. A 2007 study noted that the most fundamental flaw is that impact factors present the mean of data that are not normally distributed, and suggested that it would be more appropriate to present the median of these data. There is also a more general debate on the validity of the impact factor as a measure of journal importance and the effect of policies that editors may adopt to boost their impact factor (perhaps to the detriment of readers and writers). Other criticism focuses on the effect of the impact factor on behavior of scholars, editors and other stakeholders. Others have made more general criticisms, arguing that emphasis on impact factor results from negative influence of neoliberal policies on academia claiming that what is needed is not just replacement of the impact factor with more sophisticated metrics for science publications but also discussion on the social value of research assessment and the growing precariousness of scientific careers in higher education.
Experts stress that there are limitations in using impact factors to evaluate a scholar's work. There are many reasons cited for not relying on impact factor alone to evaluate the output of a particular individual. Among these are the following:

  • A single factor is not sufficient for evaluating an author's work.
  • Journal values are meaningless unless compared within the same discipline. Impact factors vary among disciplines.
  • The impact factor was originally devised to show the impact of a specific journal, not a specific scholar. The quality and impact of the author's work may extend beyond the impact of a particular journal.
According to Jim Testa, a researcher for ThomsonReuters Scientific, the most widespread misuse of the Impact Factor is to evaluate the work of an individual author (instead of a journal). "To say that because a researcher is publishing in a certain journal, he or she is more influential or deserves more credit is not necessarily true. There are many other variables to consider." (interview 6/26/2008 in Thomson Reuters blog entry)

Health Psychology Review
Journal Profile

About

Health Psychology Review (HPR) is a landmark publication – the first review journal in the important and growing discipline of health psychology. This new international forum, edited by a highly respected team, provides a leading environment for review, theory, and conceptual development. HPR contributes to the advancement of the discipline of health psychology and strengthens its relationship to the field of psychology as a whole, as well as to other related academic and professional arenas. It is essential reading for those engaged in the study, teaching, and practice of health psychology, behavioral medicine, and associated areas. HPR is dedicated to theoretical and conceptual work, as well as evaluative, integrative, meta-analytic and systematic reviews and interpretations of substantive issues in the general domain of health psychology. The journal particularly favors theory-based reviews of empirical contributions that afford integrative theoretical formulations of work in a given area of health psychology and reviews of developments that develop connections between areas of research within the general domain of health psychology as well as with other disciplines (ranging from biology to policy-oriented research domains). Papers that consider the cross-cultural and cross-national relevance and appropriateness of theories and key concepts are also welcomed. Articles focusing on methodological issues and problems of design and measurement will be considered if they make a direct and substantial contribution to theory. Brief commentaries addressing progress in specific sub-fields of health psychology, comments that apply to existing theoretical models and approaches, and discussions about previously published articles, can also be considered. None

Highly Cited Keywords

ISSN
1743-7199
ISSN

The ISSN of Health Psychology Review is 1743-7199 . An ISSN is an 8-digit code used to identify newspapers, journals, magazines and periodicals of all kinds and on all media–print and electronic.

ISSN (Online)
1743-7202
ISSN (Online)

The ISSN (Online) of Health Psychology Review is 1743-7202 . An ISSN is an 8-digit code used to identify newspapers, journals, magazines and periodicals of all kinds and on all media–print and electronic.

Publisher
Routledge
Publisher

Health Psychology Review is published by Routledge .

Publication Frequency
Quarterly
Publication Frequency

Health Psychology Review publishes reports Quarterly .

Coverage
2007, 2009-2020
Coverage

The Publication History of Health Psychology Review covers 2007, 2009-2020 .

Open Access
NO
Open Access

Health Psychology Review is Subscription-based (non-OA) Journal. Publishers own the rights to the articles in their journals. Anyone who wants to read the articles should pay by individual or institution to access the articles. Anyone who wants to use the articles in any way must obtain permission from the publishers.

Publication Fee
Publication Fee

There is no publication fee for submiting manuscript to Health Psychology Review. Health Psychology Review is Subscription-based (non-OA) Journal. Publishers own the rights to the articles in their journals. Anyone who wants to read the articles should pay by individual or institution to access the articles.

Language
English
Language

The language of Health Psychology Review is English .

Country/Region
United Kingdom
Country/Region

The publisher of Health Psychology Review is Routledge , which locates in United Kingdom .

Selected Articles

Full Title Authors
Full Title Authors
Experimental Manipulation of Affective Judgments about Physical Activity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Adults R. M. Carr · Andrew Prestwich · Dominika Kwasnicka · Cecilie Thøgersen-Ntoumani · Daniel F. Gucciardi · Eleanor Quested · L. H. Hall · L. H. Hall
Harnessing centred identity transformation to reduce executive function burden for maintenance of health behaviour change: the Maintain IT model Ann E. Caldwell · Kevin S. Masters · Kevin S. Masters · John C. Peters · Angela D. Bryan · Jim Grigsby · Jim Grigsby · Stephanie A. Hooker · Holly R. Wyatt · James O. Hill · James O. Hill
Complex adaptive systems: A new approach for understanding health practices Timothy Gomersall · Timothy Gomersall
Are digital interventions for smoking cessation in pregnancy effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis Sarah Ellen Griffiths · Joanne Parsons · Felix Naughton · Emily Anne Fulton · Emily Anne Fulton · Ildiko Tombor · Katherine Brown · Katherine Brown · Katherine Brown
The consideration of future consequences and health behaviour: a meta-analysis Lisa Murphy · Samantha Dockray · Samantha Dockray
How effective are interventions in improving dietary behaviour in Low and Middle Income countries? A systematic review and meta-analysis Lizzie Caperon · Bianca Sykes-Muskett · Faye Clancy · James Newell · Rebecca King · Andrew Prestwich · Andrew Prestwich
The weight of fatherhood: identifying mechanisms to explain paternal perinatal weight gain Darby E. Saxbe · Geoffrey W. Corner · Mona Khaled · Katelyn Taline Horton · Brian Wu · Hannah Lyden Khoddam · Hannah Lyden Khoddam
A developmental cascade perspective of paediatric obesity: a conceptual model and scoping review Justin D. Smith · Kaitlyn N. Egan · Zorash Montaño · Spring Dawson-McClure · Danielle E. Jake-Schoffman · Madeline Larson · Sara M. St. George · Sara M. St. George
Towards consensus on fear appeals: A rejoinder to the commentaries on Kok, Peters, Kessels, ten Hoor & Ruiter (2018) Gjalt-Jorn Peters · Robert A. C. Ruiter · Gill A. ten Hoor · Loes T. E. Kessels · Gerjo Kok · Gerjo Kok
Sedentary behaviours and health-related quality of life. A systematic review and meta-analysis Monika Boberska · Zofia Szczuka · Magdalena Kruk · Nina Knoll · Jan Keller · D.H. Hohl · Aleksandra Luszczynska · Aleksandra Luszczynska
What constitutes evidence that fear appeals have positive effects on health behaviour? Commentary on Kok, Peters, Kessels, ten Hoor, and Ruiter (2018) John M. Malouff · John M. Malouff
Ignoring theory and evidence: commentary on Kok et al. (2018) Jeff Niederdeppe · Deena Kemp · Deena Kemp
Pictorial cigarette pack warnings increase quitting: a comment on Kok et al Noel T. Brewer · Marissa G. Hall · Marissa G. Hall
Action and inaction in multi-behaviour recommendations: a meta-analysis of lifestyle interventions Dolores Albarracín · Kristina Wilson · Man pui Sally Chan · Marta R. Durantini · Flor Sánchez · Flor Sánchez
Automated Telecommunication Interventions to Promote Adherence to Cardio-metabolic Medications: Meta-analysis of Effectiveness and Meta-regression of Behaviour Change Techniques Aikaterini Kassavou · Stephen Sutton · Stephen Sutton
Evolutionary learning processes as the foundation for behaviour change Rik Crutzen · Gjalt-Jorn Peters · Gjalt-Jorn Peters
A realist review to understand the efficacy and outcomes of interventions designed to minimise, reverse or prevent the progression of frailty Holly Gwyther · Elzbieta Bobrowicz-Campos · João Apóstolo · Maura Marcucci · Antonio Cano · Carol Holland · Carol Holland
Network Meta-Analysis in Health Psychology and Behavioural Medicine: A Primer Gerard J. Molloy · Chris Noone · Deborah M Caldwell · Nicky J Welton · John Newell · John Newell
Understanding active school travel through the Behavioural Ecological Model Samuel Ginja · Bronia Arnott · Anil Namdeo · Elaine McColl · Elaine McColl
The Common Sense Model of Self-Regulation and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: integrating strategies to guide interventions for chronic illness Anthony J. Roberto · Paul A. Mongeau · Yanqin Liu · Yanqin Liu
A meta-analysis of techniques to promote motivation for health behaviour change from a self-determination theory perspective Lisa M. McAndrew · Marcus Credé · Kieran Maestro · Sarah Slotkin · Justin Kimber · L. Alison Phillips · L. Alison Phillips
Using the common-sense model to understand health outcomes for medically unexplained symptoms: a meta-analysis Jemma Todd · Dimitri Van Ryckeghem · Louise Sharpe · Geert Crombez · Geert Crombez
Attentional bias to pain-related information: a meta-analysis of dot-probe studies Ryan E. Rhodes · Samantha M. Gray · Cassandra Husband · Cassandra Husband
Ignoring theory and misinterpreting evidence : the false belief in fear appeals Gerjo Kok · Gjalt-Jorn Peters · Loes T. E. Kessels · Gill A. ten Hoor · Robert A. C. Ruiter · Robert A. C. Ruiter
Can you elaborate on that? Addressing participants need for cognition in computer-tailored health behavior interventions Fiona Gillison · Peter Rouse · Martyn Standage · Simon J. Sebire · Richard M. Ryan · Richard M. Ryan
Automatic processes and self-regulation of illness I. A. Nikoloudakis · Rik Crutzen · Amanda L. Rebar · Corneel Vandelanotte · P. Quester · M. Dry · Andrew Skuse · Mitch J. Duncan · Camille E. Short · Camille E. Short
A (Re)defining moment for fear appeals: a comment on Kok et al. (2018) Benjamin X. White · Dolores Albarracín · Dolores Albarracín
Investigating belief falsehood. Fear appeals do change behaviour in experimental laboratory studies. A commentary on Kok et al. (2018) Sheina Orbell · L. Alison Phillips · L. Alison Phillips
Misinterpreting theory and ignoring evidence: fear appeals can actually work: a comment on Kok et al. (2018) Maria Karekla · Evangelos C. Karademas · Andrew T. Gloster · Andrew T. Gloster
Dont throw the baby out with the bath water: commentary on Kok, Peters, Kessels, ten Hoor, and Ruiter (2018) Ron Borland · Ron Borland
How can interventions increase motivation for physical activity? A systematic review and meta-analysis Ellen Peters · Brittany Shoots-Reinhard · Brittany Shoots-Reinhard
The structure of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12): two meta-analytic factor analyses Keegan Knittle · J. Nurmi · Rik Crutzen · Nelli Hankonen · Marguerite Beattie · Stephan U Dombrowski · Stephan U Dombrowski
Does self-control modify the impact of interventions to change alcohol, tobacco, and food consumption? A systematic review Timo Gnambs · Thomas Staufenbiel · Thomas Staufenbiel
Trauma exposure, posttraumatic stress, and preventive health behaviours: a systematic review Sharon Y. Lee · Crystal L. Park · Crystal L. Park
Are we making the most of ecological momentary assessment data? A comment on Richardson, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, ODonnell, Ling, & Staiger, 2017 Kathryn L. Modecki · Gina L. Mazza · Gina L. Mazza
Medication Adherence as a Learning Process: Insights from Cognitive Psychology Benjamin M. Rottman · Zachary A. Marcum · Carolyn T. Thorpe · Carolyn T. Thorpe
Advanced Analytic and Statistical Methods in Health Psychology Kyra Hamilton · Marta M. Marques · Blair T. Johnson · Blair T. Johnson
Envisioning a future for precision health psychology: innovative applied statistical approaches to N-of-1 studies Karina W. Davidson · Ying Kuen Cheung · Ying Kuen Cheung
Using Bayesian Statistics in Health Psychology: A comment on Depaoli et al. (2017) Emma Beard · Robert West · Robert West
Understanding eating interventions through an evolutionary lens Britt Ahlstrom · Tran Dinh · Martie G. Haselton · A. Janet Tomiyama · A. Janet Tomiyama
Lessons learned from trait self-control in well-being: making the case for routines and initiation as important components of trait self-control Denise de Ridder · Marleen Gillebaart · Marleen Gillebaart
Understanding the challenge of weight loss maintenance: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research on weight loss maintenance Colin J Greaves · Leon Poltawski · Ruth Garside · Simon Briscoe · Simon Briscoe
Mass media narratives of womens cardiovascular disease: a qualitative meta-synthesis Christine A. Gonsalves · Kerry R. McGannon · Robert J. Schinke · Ann Pegoraro · Ann Pegoraro
Pragmatic Nihilism: How a Theory of Nothing can Help Health Psychology Progress Gjalt-Jorn Peters · Rik Crutzen · Rik Crutzen
The common-sense model of self-regulation (CSM-SR) and its role in predicting and facilitating health outcomes Martin S. Hagger · Martin S. Hagger
Examining the efficacy of social-psychological interventions for the management of fatigue in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD): a systematic review with meta-analysis Federica Picariello · Joanna L. Hudson · Rona Moss-Morris · Iain C. Macdougall · Joseph Chilcot · Joseph Chilcot
Participant experiences and perceptions of physical activity-enhancing interventions for people with physical impairments and mobility limitations: a meta-synthesis of qualitative research evidence Toni L. Williams · Jasmin K. Ma · Kathleen A. Martin Ginis · Kathleen A. Martin Ginis
The reasoned actions of an espresso machine: a comment on Peters and Crutzen (2017) Stefan L. K. Gruijters · Stefan L. K. Gruijters
What are psychological constructs? On the nature and statistical modelling of emotions, intelligence, personality traits and mental disorders Eiko I. Fried · Eiko I. Fried
Why I am not a fan of pragmatic nihilism David Trafimow · David Trafimow
An Introduction to Bayesian Statistics in Health Psychology Sarah Depaoli · Holly M. Rus · James P. Clifton · Rens van de Schoot · Jitske Tiemensma · Jitske Tiemensma
Applications of meta-analytic structural equation modelling in health psychology: examples, issues, and recommendations Mike W.-L. Cheung · Ryan Y. Hong · Ryan Y. Hong
Advances in Meta-Analysis Methodologies Contribute to Advances in Research Accumulation: Comments on Cheung & Hong and Johnson et al Noel A. Card · Noel A. Card
A comprehensive review of reviews of school-based interventions to improve sexual-health Sarah Denford · Charles Abraham · Rona Campbell · Heide Busse · Heide Busse
Identifying content-based and relational techniques to change behaviour in motivational interviewing Sarah J. Hardcastle · Michelle Fortier · Nicola Blake · Martin S. Hagger · Martin S. Hagger
Effective self-regulation change techniques to promote mental wellbeing among adolescents: a meta-analysis Lenneke van Genugten · Elise Dusseldorp · Emma K. Massey · Pepijn van Empelen · Pepijn van Empelen
Evaluating the impact of method bias in health behaviour research: a meta-analytic examination of studies utilising the theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour Máirtín S. McDermott · Rajeev Sharma · Rajeev Sharma
Meaning in life and physical health: systematic review and meta-analysis Katarzyna Czekierda · Anna Banik · Crystal L. Park · Aleksandra Luszczynska · Aleksandra Luszczynska
Thinking is the best way to travel: towards an ecological interactionist approach: a comment on Peters and Crutzen Hein de Vries · Hein de Vries
A scoping review of the psychological responses to interval exercise: is interval exercise a viable alternative to traditional exercise? Matthew J. Stork · Laura Banfield · Martin J. Gibala · Kathleen A. Martin Ginis · Kathleen A. Martin Ginis
Should patients be optimistic about surgery? Resolving a conflicted literature Kate Sweeny · Sara E. Andrews · Sara E. Andrews
Confidence in constant progress: or how pragmatic nihilism encourages optimism through modesty Gjalt-Jorn Peters · Rik Crutzen · Rik Crutzen
Clocking self-regulation: why time of day matters for health psychology Brett M. Millar · Brett M. Millar
Spatiotemporal meta-analysis: Reviewing health psychology phenomena over space and time Blair T. Johnson · Blair T. Johnson
Dynamic modelling of n-of-1 data: powerful and flexible data analytics applied to individualised studies Rute Vieira · Suzanne McDonald · Vera Araujo-Soares · Falko F. Sniehotta · Robin Henderson · Robin Henderson
Scale quality: alpha is an inadequate estimate and factor-analytic evidence is needed first of all Rik Crutzen · Gjalt-Jorn Peters · Gjalt-Jorn Peters
Building better boxes for theories of health behavior: a comment on Williams and Rhodes (2016) Noel T. Brewer · Noel T. Brewer
Reviving the critical distinction between perceived capability and motivation: a response to commentaries David M. Williams · Ryan E. Rhodes · Ryan E. Rhodes
Reasoned versus reactive prediction of behaviour: a meta-analysis of the prototype willingness model Jemma Todd · Emily Kothe · Barbara Mullan · Lauren A. Monds · Lauren A. Monds
Computer-delivered interventions for reducing alcohol consumption: meta-analysis and meta-regression using behaviour change techniques and theory Nicola Danielle Black · Barbara Mullan · Louise Sharpe · Louise Sharpe
Does perceived risk influence the effects of message framing? Revisiting the link between prospect theory and message framing Jonathan van ‘t Riet · Anthony D. Cox · Dena Cox · Gregory D. Zimet · Gert-Jan de Bruijn · Bas van den Putte · Hein de Vries · M.Q. Werrij · Robert A. C. Ruiter · Robert A. C. Ruiter
Self-efficacy: skip the main factor paradigm! A comment on Williams and Rhodes (2016) Hein de Vries · Hein de Vries
Disentangling motivation from self-efficacy: implications for measurement, theory-development, and intervention Mark R. Beauchamp · Mark R. Beauchamp
Self-directed interventions to promote weight loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis Jason Tang · Charles Abraham · Colin J Greaves · Nikolaou · Nikolaou
Reactions to the meta-analyses of the Prototype Willingness Model Frederick X. Gibbons · Meg Gerrard · Meg Gerrard
How well does the theory of planned behaviour predict alcohol consumption? A systematic review and meta-analysis Richard Cooke · Mary Dahdah · Paul Norman · David P. French · David P. French
Quantifying the strength of the associations of prototype perceptions with behaviour, behavioural willingness and intentions: a meta-analysis B. van Lettow · H. de Vries · Alex Burdorf · P. van Empelen · P. van Empelen
The confounded self-efficacy construct: conceptual analysis and recommendations for future research David M. Williams · Ryan E. Rhodes · Ryan E. Rhodes
How to reduce sitting time? A review of behaviour change strategies used in sedentary behaviour reduction interventions among adults Benjamin Gardner · Lee Smith · Fabiana Lorencatto · Mark Hamer · Stuart Biddle · Stuart Biddle
A systematic review of the effects of non-conscious regulatory processes in physical activity Amanda L. Rebar · James A. Dimmock · Ben Jackson · Ryan E. Rhodes · Andrew Kates · Jade Starling · Corneel Vandelanotte · Corneel Vandelanotte
Health behaviour procrastination: a novel reasoned route towards self-regulatory failure Floor M. Kroese · Denise de Ridder · Denise de Ridder
The effectiveness of multi-component goal setting interventions for changing physical activity behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis Desmond McEwan · Samantha M. Harden · Bruno D. Zumbo · Benjamin D. Sylvester · Megan Kaulius · Geralyn R. Ruissen · A. Justine Dowd · Mark R. Beauchamp · Mark R. Beauchamp
Does Inhibitory Control Training Improve Health Behaviour? A Meta-Analysis Vanessa Allom · Barbara Mullan · Martin S. Hagger · Martin S. Hagger
Efficacy of theory-based interventions to promote physical activity. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials Mathieu Gourlan · Paquito Bernard · Catherine Bortolon · A.-J. Romain · Olivier Lareyre · Grégory Ninot · Julie Boiché · Julie Boiché
Health behavior change: a field just picking up speed. A comment on Ogden (2016) Pedro J. Teixeira · Pedro J. Teixeira
The world is confounded: a comment on Williams and Rhodes (2016) Ralf Schwarzer · Edward McAuley · Edward McAuley
Health goal priming as a situated intervention tool: how to benefit from nonconscious motivational routes to health behaviour Esther K. Papies · Esther K. Papies
What is the psychological impact of self-weighing? A meta-analysis Yael Benn · Thomas L. Webb · Betty Chang · Benjamin Harkin · Benjamin Harkin
A systematic review of review articles addressing factors related to physical activity participation among children and adults with physical disabilities Kathleen A. Martin Ginis · Jasmin K. Ma · Amy E. Latimer-Cheung · James H. Rimmer · James H. Rimmer
Charting variability to ensure conceptual and design precision: a comment on Ogden (2016) Charles Abraham · Charles Abraham
Non-Conscious Processes and Dual-Process Theories in Health Psychology Martin S. Hagger · Martin S. Hagger
Professor Lynn Myers 13th June 1954 – 21st August 2015 Parminder Sonia Kaur Dhiman · Parminder Sonia Kaur Dhiman
A science for all reasons: A comment on Ogden (2016)* Marie Johnston · Marie Johnston
Celebrating variability and a call to limit systematisation: the example of the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy and the Behaviour Change Wheel Jane Ogden · Jane Ogden
Theories, timing and choice of audience: some key tensions in health psychology and a response to commentaries on Ogden (2016) Jane Ogden · Jane Ogden
Multidimensional targeting for tailoring: a comment on Ogden (2016) Dolores Albarracín · Laura R. Glasman · Laura R. Glasman
All models are wrong, but some are useful: a comment on Ogden (2016) Gjalt-Jorn Peters · Gerjo Kok · Gerjo Kok
Relationship of health locus of control with specific health behaviours and global health appraisal: a meta-analysis and effects of moderators Cecilia Cheng · Mike W.-L. Cheung · Barbara C. Y. Lo · Barbara C. Y. Lo
Behaviour Centred Design: towards an applied science of behaviour change Robert Aunger · Curtis · Curtis
Spiritual coping, psychosocial adjustment, and physical health in youth with chronic illness: a meta-analytic review Nina Reynolds · Sylvie Mrug · Kelly Wolfe · David C. Schwebel · Jan L. Wallander · Jan L. Wallander
The potential of peer social norms to shape food intake in adolescents and young adults: a systematic review of effects and moderators F. Marijn Stok · Emely de Vet · Denise de Ridder · John de Wit · John de Wit
A closer look at prototypes: similarity, favourability, and the prototype willingness model. A response to the commentary of Gibbons and Gerrard Jemma Todd · Britt van Lettow · Britt van Lettow
Non-conscious processes in changing health-related behaviour: a conceptual analysis and framework Gareth John Hollands · Theresa Marteau · P. C. Fletcher · P. C. Fletcher
Is physical activity a part of who I am? A review and meta-analysis of identity, schema and physical activity Ryan E. Rhodes · Navin Kaushal · Alison Quinlan · Alison Quinlan
Theoretical explanations for maintenance of behaviour change: a systematic review of behaviour theories Dominika Kwasnicka · Stephan U Dombrowski · Martin White · Falko F. Sniehotta · Falko F. Sniehotta
A taxonomy of behaviour change methods: an Intervention Mapping approach Gerjo Kok · Nell H. Gottlieb · Gjalt-Jorn Peters · Patricia Dolan Mullen · Guy S. Parcel · Robert A. C. Ruiter · Maria E. Fernandez · Christine M. Markham · L. Kay Bartholomew · L. Kay Bartholomew

Experimental Manipulation of Affective Judgments about Physical Activity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Adults
Health Psychology Review | 2018
R. M. Carr · Andrew Prestwich · Dominika Kwasnicka · Cecilie Thøgersen-Ntoumani · Daniel F. Gucciardi · Eleanor Quested · L. H. Hall · L. H. Hall
Harnessing centred identity transformation to reduce executive function burden for maintenance of health behaviour change: the Maintain IT model
Health Psychology Review | 2018
Ann E. Caldwell · Kevin S. Masters · Kevin S. Masters · John C. Peters · Angela D. Bryan · Jim Grigsby · Jim Grigsby · Stephanie A. Hooker · Holly R. Wyatt · James O. Hill · James O. Hill
Are digital interventions for smoking cessation in pregnancy effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Health Psychology Review | 2018
Sarah Ellen Griffiths · Joanne Parsons · Felix Naughton · Emily Anne Fulton · Emily Anne Fulton · Ildiko Tombor · Katherine Brown · Katherine Brown · Katherine Brown