1. HEALTH PROMOTION

2. Rosenstock (1966) for studying and promoting the uptake of health services Originally, the model was designed to predict behavioral response to the treatment received by acutely or chronically ill patients. But in more recent years the model has been used to predict more general health behaviors

4. But really – the main ideas are these: HBM sees people as rational and suggest that the likelihood that they will engage in healthy behaviour depends on factors as:  Evaluation of threat (perceived vunerability). The model suggests that people only act if they perceive their behaviour to be dangerous.  Cost-benefit analysis. Will the benefits be higher than perceived barriers (the costs)? Is it worth it? If so – action will take place according to the model.

5. Important is also to know: Self-efficiancy is seen as important – i.e. the belief that you can perform well. (Support: Bandura (1977)– self-efficiency is important as a predictor to change. Becker et al made considerable changes and updates in the original model – adding modifying factors (like social factors) and the role of knowledge.

6. Application: External cues such as health information seems especially important. Sutton showed that information in the form of fear-arousing warnings can be used as prevention and cessation of smoking (Sutton, 1981)

7. Research: Quist Paulsen (2003) Field experiment investigating participants with heart problems. Aim: to see whether invention including fear arousal (information, personal advice stressing the risks) would promote smoking cessassion and prevent relapse. Normal 30-45 stop smoking by themselves. Result: 57% of the intervention group (compared to 37 % of the control gruop) had stopped smoking.

8. Evaluation: Strenghts:  Common-sense constructs  Makes testable predictions eg. cost-benefit analysis and tests of self-efficiancy will predict outcome.

9. Weaknesses:  Too much cognition – simplifying behavioural change (ignoring emotional, social and economic factors) --> But… the modified version by Becker etc. in 1980s added modifying factors to meet this criricism.  Research show the opposite –that being aware of health risks will NOT lead to a changed behaviour. Rather – people tent to be overly optimistic (Weinstein, 1987)