Health Psychology Review: advancing theory and research in health psychology and behavioural medicine

Integrative reviews and synthesis: more important than ever

Research in the field of psychology is burgeoning. There are more researchers and investigators, articles published and journals than ever before. According to Thomson Reuters, the holdings of the Web of Science database now exceeds 9000 journals and the number is climbing (Testa, 2010). To a large extent, electronic databases and digital holdings for journals like Web of Science and Medline have revolutionised research and the process of locating articles has never been easier or more efficient. However, the sheer size of the psychology canon has, paradoxically, created new difficulties. Distilling, synthesising and interpreting such a large body of literature presents a real challenge for scholars, particularly those wanting to identify a pithy, succinct précis of a particular field or area. As a consequence, researchers and academics increasingly turn to narrative and empirical reviews in order to get an up-to-date compendium of the research in their topic of interest. Furthermore, recognition of the importance of an evidence-base in the development of policy and practice in the field of health and medicine has also created the need for syntheses of research evidence in key areas (Kelly & Abraham, 2009). Such syntheses have been used extensively to inform policy practice in the health arena and will continue to do so (e.g., Cochrane database of systematic reviews). Finally, the rise of methods to conduct empirical syntheses of research evidence, such as meta-analyses and systematic reviews has also assisted in producing evidence-based summaries of the state of the literature in health psychology (Hagger, 2006). Coupled with more traditional integrative narrative reviews, these syntheses are increasingly ‘in demand’ and highly cited in the field.

Health Psychology Review (HPR): an essential forum

This demand makes Health Psychology Review (HPR) an essential forum for the dissemination of high-quality empirical and narrative reviews of the literature. The journal is still relatively young, but its reputation is increasing and I find myself at the helm of a journal with huge potential for making a lasting contribution to the fields of health psychology and behavioural medicine for several reasons. First, the journal is like no other. It occupies an important niche in the field as it is the only review publication of its kind and is clearly located as an essential reference for all psychologists seeking articles that summarise the state of the literature in the discipline of psychology applied to health, broadly defined. Second, the journal has vast potential to attract citations and serve as an indispensible resource for academics, students, and practitioners of health psychology. Third, it will serve as an important source of original thought in which theories and hypotheses in health psychology can be put forward, debated, modified and refined. This will be an important step prior to future empirical and formative research that will verify theoretical developments. So, HPR is an essential reference and keystone publication that will summarise the state of the health psychology literature, catalyse future research and spawn new, original thinking that will move the field forward.

As a reader of, and contributor to, HPR in the 3 years since its inception, what has struck me is the quality, rigour and attention to detail of its contents. The inaugural editor, Joop van der Pligt, his team of Associate Editors and the Editorial Board have done a masterful job in developing the journal and it is becoming increasingly recognised as an important forum for theoretical and empirical reviews. I would also like to acknowledge the continued support of the European Health Psychology Society (EHPS) and the editorial team at Taylor and Francis. Through the work of the editorial team, HPR has established itself as a worthy companion to Psychology and Health, one of the leading empirical journals in the field, and together they comprise the strong portfolio of journals of the EHPS. Congratulations and gratitude must be extended to the outgoing team for their efforts. As incoming editor, I acknowledge the success of the journal thus far and I am proud to be appointed to this role and associated with such a fine publication. However, I also recognise that there room for improvement and accept and relish the challenges that lie ahead.

My vision for the future of this key publication is summarised in three aims. First, it is essential to maintain quality of the journal's contents. To some extent, I already find myself one step ahead with respect to this aim as I am very fortunate to be joined by a truly outstanding team of Associate Editors. I am delighted to announce that my role as Editor will be supported by the following group of highly reputable scholars: Noel Brewer (University of North Carolina, USA), Linda Cameron (University of Auckland, New Zealand), Denise de Ridder (Utrecht University, the Netherlands), Antonia Lyons (Waikato University, New Zealand) and Falko Sniehotta (University of Aberdeen, UK). It is a privilege to work with such an outstanding team and I can sleep easy knowing that the quality of submissions will be maintained on their watch. Second, I seek to attract new, original contributions to the journal that will be of interest to the readership and address fundamental questions and contemporary topics in health psychology and behavioural medicine alike. The journal, I feel, must play an active and progressive role in moving knowledge forward. To this end, the editorial team and I will introduce and actively encourage authors to submit contributions in new formats that complement standard full-length articles. These will include commentaries and articles on methodological and practice issues. Third, the journal is already making an impact and I want to increase this further. I know this not only from the quality and originality of the contributions published thus far, but also in terms of important metrics, such as numbers of citations of HPR articles, electronic articles downloaded and visits to the journal website. However, there is a clear need to formally quantify this impact, and my aim is to bring about the first impact factor for HPR during my tenure as Editor.

The future of research reviews

The HPR editorial team is committed to high-quality integrative reviews that span disciplines, have a role in developing theory and make a contribution to the understanding of psychology applied to health. To this end, we seek to publish reviews that not only summarise the state of the literature, but also address fundamental questions relating to the mechanisms and processes that underpin behaviour and outcomes in health and illness. Research in health psychology is often compartmentalised into discrete categories, such as social cognition and health behaviour, interventions and trials, psychological aspects of illness and processes of health care delivery. However, recent submissions to the journal have transcended these traditional categories and developed theories that integrate ideas from different areas relevant to health-related behaviour and outcomes. Recent examples from HPR include theoretical models that examine personal, social and environmental influences on health behaviour (e.g., Hall & Fong, 2007; Penwell & Larkin, 2010; van Stralen, De Vries, Mudde, Bolman, & Lechner, 2009), the impact of explicit and implicit processes (Aarts, 2007; Hofmann, Friese, & Wiers, 2008), the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions and their design (Abraham & Graham-Rowe, 2009; Annesi, Marti, & Stice, 2010; Floyd & Moyer, 2010; Good & Abraham, 2007; Ussher, Perz, Hawkins, & Brack, 2009), wellbeing and health outcomes (Howell, Kern, & Lyubomirsky, 2007), and social influences on health outcomes (Beck, 2008). The fact that these reviews encompass more than one area of health psychology demonstrates that original thinking and theory development do not easily fit into the traditional categories and we encourage such integrative approaches.

Emerging areas of research that I can see becoming important in the future and in need of synthesis include management of long-term conditions (Plews, 2005), complex interventions (Campbell et al., 2000), digital and online technologies (Kraft & Yardley, 2009), efficacy and content of specific behaviour change techniques and components (Michie, Rothman, & Sheeran, 2007), cross-cultural influences on health behaviour (Rüdell & Diefenbach, 2008), individual differences as moderators of processes (e.g., demographics and personality; Hagger, 2009), the interface between environment and behaviour (e.g., ‘obesogenic’ environments; Annesi et al., 2010; Rooke & Thorsteinsson, 2008; Wardle, 2009), and new perspectives on self-regulation and individual behaviour (Hagger, Wood, Stiff, & Chatzisarantis, 2009; Hall & Fong, 2007; Van Damme, Crombez, Goubert, & Eccleston, 2009). I would also encourage the submission of reviews that develop ideas based on converging evidence from multiple methods. For example, the randomised controlled trial dominates the literature in medicine, and, in health psychology, is an essential design for the evaluation of interventions that promote behaviour change and to the efficacy of psychologically informed trials (Sibbald & Roland, 1998). However, this should be complemented with inquiry from other sources, such as formative research using survey, interview, archival and focus group data, and both qualitative and quantitative analyses (Tones, 2000). Systematic reviews should seek to be more inclusive when it comes to examining and integrating these multiple evidence sources to draw definitive conclusions as to the evidence base for a particular literature, as well as provide a rationale and ideas for future research endeavour.

Conclusion

On behalf of the Associate Editors and Editorial Board of HPR, I encourage readers and researchers to submit their best research syntheses, in the form of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and new ideas, in the form of narrative reviews and commentaries, to the journal. The journal will continue to grow and expand in the next few years and I predict it will become a centrepiece in the field that will promote original scholarship, broadly summarise and synthesise the research in the field and provide innovative new theories that will engender further empirical study. I want HPR to be the ‘go-to’ journal for scholars who seek narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews that inform and innovate the field. I am confident that in the next few years the journal will establish itself as the leading review publication in the field with high impact and considered the Psychological Bulletin of the health psychology discipline.