| Title |
Mental contrasting as a behaviour change technique: a systematic review protocol paper of effects, mediators and moderators on health
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-016-0382-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ainslea Cross, David Sheffield |
| Abstract |
Mental contrasting is a self-regulation strategy that is required for strong goal commitment. In mental contrasting, individuals firstly imagine a desired future or health goal that contrasted with the reality proceeding the goal state, which after reflection is viewed as an obstacle (Oettingen et al. J Pers Soc Psychol 80:736-753, 2001). Mentally contrasting a positive future with reality enables individuals to translate positive attitudes and high efficacy into strong goal commitment. A systematic review of the literature is proposed to explore the efficacy of mental contrasting as a behaviour change technique (Michie et al., Ann Behav Med 46: 81-95, 2013) for health. The review also aims to identify the effects of mental contrasting on health-related behaviour, as well as identifying mediator and moderator variables. This will be the first systematic review of mental contrasting as a health behaviour change technique. With sufficient studies, a meta-analysis will be conducted with sensitivity and sub group analyses. If meta-analysis is not appropriate, a narrative synthesis of the reviewed studies will be conducted. Review protocol registered on PROSPERO reference CRD42016034202 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 33% |
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 16% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Professor | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 13 | 24% |
| Unknown | 11 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 23 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 7% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 February 2023.
All research outputs
#1,400,979
of 23,567,572 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#208
of 2,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,854
of 419,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#9
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,572 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,048 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,051 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.