↓ Skip to main content

The consideration of future consequences and health behaviour: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Health Psychology Review, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
47 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The consideration of future consequences and health behaviour: a meta-analysis
Published in
Health Psychology Review, June 2018
DOI 10.1080/17437199.2018.1489298
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa Murphy, Samantha Dockray

Abstract

The aim of this meta-analysis was to quantify the direction and strength of associations between the Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC) scale and intended and actual engagement in three categories of health-related behaviour: health risk, health promotive, and illness preventative/detective behaviour. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies that measured CFC and health behaviour. In total, sixty-four effect sizes were extracted from 53 independent samples. Effect sizes were synthesised using a random-effects model. Aggregate effect sizes for all behaviour categories were significant, albeit small in magnitude. There were no significant moderating effects of the length of CFC scale (long vs. short), population type (college students vs. non-college students), mean age, or sex proportion of study samples. CFC reliability and study quality score significantly moderated the overall association between CFC and health risk behaviour only. The magnitude of effect sizes is comparable to associations between health behaviour and other individual difference variables, such as the Big Five personality traits. The findings indicate that CFC is an important construct to consider in research on engagement in health risk behaviour in particular. Future research is needed to examine the optimal approach by which to apply the findings to behavioural interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 18%
Student > Master 11 11%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 27 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 34 33%
Social Sciences 8 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 32 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 01 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,321,126
of 25,240,298 outputs
Outputs from Health Psychology Review
#83
of 337 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,822
of 336,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Psychology Review
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,240,298 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 337 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 336,025 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.