IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i24p9480-d464058.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Status of Theory Use in Self-Care Research

Author

Listed:
  • Tiny Jaarsma

    (Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linkoping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden
    Mary McKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne 3000, Australia
    Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Heleen Westland

    (Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Ercole Vellone

    (Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, 00133 Roma, Italy)

  • Kenneth E. Freedland

    (Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA)

  • Carin Schröder

    (Ecare4you, 3811 BJ Amersfoort, The Netherlands)

  • Jaap C. A. Trappenburg

    (Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Anna Strömberg

    (Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linkoping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden
    Department of Cardiology, Linkoping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden)

  • Barbara Riegel

    (School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA)

Abstract

Background: Theories can provide a foundation to explain behavior, investigate relationships, and to predict the effect of interventions. The aim of the study was to clarify the use of theories in studies testing interventions to promote self-care. Method: A scoping review. PubMed, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL were searched from January 2008 through January 2019. Nine common chronic conditions were included. We included studies testing a self-care intervention if they used a randomized controlled trial design. The study was registered in PROSPERO (#123719). Results: The search retrieved 9309 potential studies, of which 233 were included in the review. In total, 76 (33%) of the 233 studies used a theory and 24 different theories were used. Bandura’s social cognitive theory was the most frequently used (48 studies), but 22 other theories were used in a minority of studies. Most studies used theories minimally to justify or provide a rationale for the study, to develop the intervention, to select outcomes, and/or to explain the results. Only eight studies fully used a theory in the rationale, intervention development, choice of outcomes, and discussion. Conclusion: The use of theories to guide self-care research is limited, which may pose a barrier in accumulating knowledge underlying self-care interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Tiny Jaarsma & Heleen Westland & Ercole Vellone & Kenneth E. Freedland & Carin Schröder & Jaap C. A. Trappenburg & Anna Strömberg & Barbara Riegel, 2020. "Status of Theory Use in Self-Care Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:24:p:9480-:d:464058
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/24/9480/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/24/9480/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nisakorn Vibulchai & Sureeporn Thanasilp & Sunida Preechawong, 2016. "Randomized controlled trial of a self‐efficacy enhancement program for the cardiac rehabilitation of Thai patients with myocardial infarction," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), pages 188-195, June.
    2. Janna Hastings & Susan Michie & Marie Johnston, 2020. "Theory and ontology in behavioural science," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(3), pages 226-226, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:24:p:9480-:d:464058. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.