Changing multiple health behaviors: smoking and exercise

BACKGROUND: Previous stage of change research examining health behaviors has tended to examine one behavior at a time. However, one recent study by King et al. (1996) examined the relationship between smoking and exercise across cognitive-behavioral mediators (i.e., decisional balance and self-efficacy) shown to be important in predicting readiness to change. In this study, we seek to replicate the study of King et al. (1996) in a low-income sample, the majority of whom are women, with at least one chronic illness who are attending primary care clinics. METHODS: Data were obtained from 270 adult outpatients attending four public primary care clinics in Louisiana. RESULTS: Smoking and exercise stage of change were not related. Significant relationships existed between the cognitive variables of smoking and exercise. No significant differences existed within exercise stage of change on the cognitive variables of smoking, and vice versa, no significant differences were noted within smoking stage of change on the cognitive variables of exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking and exercise appear to be specific health behaviors that are independent constructs in this particular sample. However, caution should be taken when interpreting the findings since 75% of the sample had at least one chronic illness

A social comparison theory analysis of group composition and efficacy of cancer support group programs

Group-based psychosocial programs provide an effective forum for improving mood and social support for cancer patients. Because some studies show more benefit for patients with initially high psychosocial distress, and little or no benefit for patients with initially low distress, support programs may better address patient needs by only including distressed patients. However, distressed patients may benefit particularly from the presence of nondistressed patients who model effective coping, an idea many researchers and extensions of social comparison theory support. We present a theoretical analysis, based on a social comparison perspective, of how group composition (heterogeneous group of distressed and nondistressed patients versus homogeneous group of distressed patients) may affect the efficacy of cancer support programs. We propose that a heterogeneous group allows distressed patients maximal opportunity for the various social comparison activities they are likely to prefer; a homogeneous group does not. Though the presence of nondistressed patients in a heterogeneous group potentially benefits distressed patients, the benefits for nondistressed patients are unclear. For nondistressed patients, heterogeneous groups may provide limited opportunities for preferred social comparison activity and may create the possibility for no benefit or even negative effects on quality of life. We also discuss ethical issues with enrolling nondistressed patients whose presence may help others, but whose likelihood of personal benefit is questionable

A social comparison theory analysis of group composition and efficacy of cancer support group programs

Group-based psychosocial programs provide an effective forum for improving mood and social support for cancer patients. Because some studies show more benefit for patients with initially high psychosocial distress, and little or no benefit for patients with initially low distress, support programs may better address patient needs by only including distressed patients. However, distressed patients may benefit particularly from the presence of nondistressed patients who model effective coping, an idea many researchers and extensions of social comparison theory support. We present a theoretical analysis, based on a social comparison perspective, of how group composition (heterogeneous group of distressed and nondistressed patients versus homogeneous group of distressed patients) may affect the efficacy of cancer support programs. We propose that a heterogeneous group allows distressed patients maximal opportunity for the various social comparison activities they are likely to prefer; a homogeneous group does not. Though the presence of nondistressed patients in a heterogeneous group potentially benefits distressed patients, the benefits for nondistressed patients are unclear. For nondistressed patients, heterogeneous groups may provide limited opportunities for preferred social comparison activity and may create the possibility for no benefit or even negative effects on quality of life. We also discuss ethical issues with enrolling nondistressed patients whose presence may help others, but whose likelihood of personal benefit is questionable.Social comparison theory Theoretical evaluation of cancer support groups Psychological distress