Institute for Collaboration on Health, Intervention, and Policy (InCHIP), University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
Health Psychol Rev. 2020 Mar;14(1):6-42. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2019.1679654.
Self-regulation is one primary mechanism in interventions for health behavior change and has been examined in numerous recent meta-analyses. This pre-registered meta-review (PROSPERO CRD42017074018) examined Mmeta-analyses of any intervention and health behavior/outcome were eligible if they quantitatively assessed self-regulation and appeared between January 2006 and August 2017. In total, 66 meta-analyses were ultimately eligible; 27% reported a protocol, 11% used GRADE; 58% focused on RCTs. Reviews satisfied only a moderate number of items on the AMSTAR 2 ( = 45.45%, = 29.57%). Only 6% of meta-analyses directly examined whether changes in self-regulation predicted the behavior change (i.e., self-efficacy and physical activity, 2; frequency of self-monitoring and goal attainment, = 1; cognitive bias modification and addiction, 1). Meta-analyses more routinely assessed self-regulation by comparing the efficacy of intervention components (97%), such as those from behavior change taxonomies. Meta-analyses that focused on intervention components identified several as successful, including personalized feedback, goal setting, and self-monitoring; however, none were consistently successful in that each worked only for some health behaviors and with particular populations. Some components had inconclusive evidence, given that they were only examined in low- quality reviews. Future reviewers should utilize advanced methods to assess mechanisms, and study authors should report hypothesized mechanisms to facilitate synthesis.
自我调节是健康行为改变干预措施的主要机制之一，已在许多最近的荟萃分析中进行了研究。本预先注册的元综述（PROSPERO CRD42017074018）审查了任何干预措施和健康行为/结果的荟萃分析，如果它们定量评估了自我调节并且在 2006 年 1 月至 2017 年 8 月之间出现，则符合条件。共有 66 项荟萃分析最终符合条件；27%的研究报告了方案，11%的研究使用了 GRADE；58%的研究集中在 RCT 上。综述仅满足 AMSTAR 2 的中等数量项目（=45.45%，=29.57%）。只有 6%的荟萃分析直接检查了自我调节的变化是否预测了行为的改变（即自我效能和体育活动，2；自我监测和目标达成的频率，=1；认知偏差修正和成瘾，1）。荟萃分析更经常地通过比较干预成分的功效来评估自我调节（97%），例如行为改变分类学中的成分。专注于干预成分的荟萃分析确定了一些成功的成分，包括个性化反馈、目标设定和自我监测；然而，并非所有成分都始终成功，因为每个成分仅对某些健康行为和特定人群有效。一些成分的证据不明确，因为它们仅在低质量的综述中进行了检查。未来的综述者应利用先进的方法来评估机制，研究作者应报告假设的机制，以促进综合分析。
