NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
Support for this project was provided by Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Contract No. 030324 and National Institutes of Health and Center for Disease Control, Contract No. N01-OD-4-2139, TO #38. The views presented in this report are those of the Institute of Medicine Committee on Health and Behavior: Research, Practice and Policy and are not necessarily those of the funding agencies.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Health and behavior: the interplay of biological, behavioral, and societal influences/Committee on Health and Behavior, Research, Practice, and Policy, Board on Neuroscience and Behavioral Health, Institute of Medicine.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-309-07030-9 (hardcover)
1. Medicine and psychology. 2. Social medicine. [DNLM: 1. Health Behavior. 2. Attitude to Health. 3. Preventive Health Services. 4. Socioeconomic Factors. W 85 H4338 2001] I. Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Health and Behavior: Research, Practice, and Policy.
R726.5 .H43225 2001
Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the
National Academy Press,
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Box 285, Washington, D.C. 20055. Call (800) 624–6242 or (202) 334–3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area), or visit the NAP’s home page at www.nap.edu.
For more information about the Institute of Medicine, visit the IOM home page at: www.iom.edu.
Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
The serpent has been a symbol of long life, healing, and knowledge among almost all cultures and religions since the beginning of recorded history. The serpent adopted as a logotype by the Institute of Medicine is a relief carving from ancient Greece, now held by the Staatliche Museen in Berlin.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Research Council
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M.Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm.A.Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I.Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M.Alberts and Dr. Wm.A.Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND BEHAVIOR: RESEARCH, PRACTICE AND POLICY
EDWARD N.BRANDT, (Chair), Regents Professor and Director,
Center for Health Policy, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
MACARAN A.BAIRD, (Vice Chair), Medical Director,
Mayo Management Services, Inc.; Professor of Family Medicine Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minnesota
LISA F.BERKMAN, Director,
Center for Society and Health;
Florence Sprague Norman & Laura Smart Norman Professor and Chair,
Department of Health and Social Behavior, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
W.THOMAS BOYCE, Professor,
Division of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Public Health, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California
MARGARET A.CHESNEY, Professor,
UCSF School of Medicine;
Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, University of California, San Francisco, California
LAWRENCE O.GOSTIN, Director,
Center for Law and Public Health;
Professor of Public Health,
the Johns Hopkins University;
Professor of Law,
Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia
BARBARA A.ISRAEL, Professor,
Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan
ROBERT L.JOHNSON, Professor,
Department of Pediatrics, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey
ROBERT M.KAPLAN, Professor and Chair,
Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, California
BRUCE S.MCEWEN, Professor and Head,
Laboratory of Neuroendocrinology, Rockefeller University, New York, New York
JOHN F.SHERIDAN, Professor,
Departments of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, and Oral Biology, Ohio State University Health Sciences Center, Columbus, Ohio
DAVID SPIEGEL, Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences,
Department of Psychiatry, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
Liaison to the IOM Board on Neuroscience and Behavioral Health
BEATRIX A.HAMBURG, Visiting Scholar,
Department of Psychiatry, Cornell University Medical College, New York, New York
Liaison to the IOM Board on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention
ELENA O.NIGHTINGALE, Scholar-in-Residence,
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia
TERRY C.PELLMAR, Director,
Board on Neuroscience and Behavioral Health (since May 1999)
WENDY S.PACHTER, Study Director (until April 2000)
ALLISON L.FRIEDMAN, Senior Project Assistant (until December 1999)
AMELIA B.MATHIS, Project Assistant
LINDA V.LEONARD, Administrative Assistant (until September 2000)
LORA K.TAYLOR, Administrative Assistant (since October 2000)
CARLOS GABRIEL, Financial Associate (until December 2000)
JENNIFER CANGCO, Financial Associate (since January 2001)
ROBERT COPPOCK, Consultant
KATHLEEN R.STRATTON, Director,
Board on Health Promotion Disease Prevention (until September 1999)
ROBERT M.COOK-DEGAN, Director,
National Cancer Policy Board (until June 2000)
In 1982, the Institute of Medicine published a landmark study titled Health and Behavior: Frontiers of Biobehavioral Research. That study drew on the findings of six invitational conferences to provide a perspective on the frontiers of the biobehavioral sciences, their relevance to public health—particularly to decreasing the burden of illness—and their implications for science policy. The report stimulated research and training in the biobehavioral sciences, and although the report is now 18 years old, much of it is still current.
The Board on Neuroscience and Behavioral Health and the Board on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention of the Institute of Medicine were interested in updating the 1982 report because of the broad range of research and intervention activity it stimulated, and the growing recognition of the importance of behavior to health during the years since the original report. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research of the National Institutes of Health, and other Department of Health and Human Services sponsors, including the National Institute of Mental Health and the Centers for Disease Control, provided funding for a new study that would differ in several ways from the original report. First, the new study was not to be merely an update of the areas covered in the original report or diseases in which the contribution of behavior is recognized (such as HIV and AIDS), but instead was to identify factors involved in health and disease for which re-
search is incomplete. Second, this study was to go beyond biobehavioral research to consider applications and cost-effectiveness.
The Institute of Medicine convened the Committee on Health and Behavior: Research, Practice and Policy in September 1998. The Committee comprised 12 members with experience in basic, clinical, and public health research; practice in settings ranging from public health to private practice and managed care; and experience with federal, local, and private policy. Committee members had specific expertise in internal, family, adolescent, and pediatric medicine; health policy; epidemiology and social epidemiology; family therapy; clinical and social psychology; law and ethics; health education; neuroendocrinology; and immunology and psychiatry.
The Committee refined its statement of task at the first meeting. The Committee decided that the health and behavior field had become much too large to study comprehensively in the time allotted. The Committee therefore agreed to focus primarily on new and promising developments in the field since 1982, based on the best available research, or, occasionally, on the Committee’s assessment of where the field is heading. Committee members agreed that health and behavior should be broadly defined to include both behavioral and psychosocial factors as in the 1982 report, rather than limiting consideration to “health behaviors” such as eating, smoking and other substance use and abuse, and physical activity. This decision also reflected the sense of the Committee that since 1982 the social sciences have made new and exciting contributions to understanding health and behavior and that these have implications for interventions and policy. Psychosocial factors are the individual interpretations or understandings of social relationships, events, or status that reflect a combination of psychological and social variables and are internalized and affect biological factors.
The Committee also decided at the first meeting to consider “applications” of behavioral and psychosocial interventions rather than “practice.” The significance of this change was to enable the Committee to think beyond traditional medical or other clinical practice to include programmatic and public health interventions.
The resulting charge to the Committee was to (1) update scientific findings about the links between biological, psychosocial and behavioral factors, and health; (2) identify factors involved in health and disease but for which research on these factors and effective behavioral and psychosocial interventions is incomplete; (3) identify and review effective applica-
tions of behavioral and psychosocial interventions in a variety of settings; (4) examine implementation of behavioral and psychosocial interventions, including guidelines and changes in provider behaviors; (5) review evidence of cost-effectiveness; and (6) make recommendations concerning further research, applications, and financing.
The Committee prepared papers on a variety of topics and deliberated in a series of five meetings, several of which were open to the public. Several experts in health and behavior were invited to address the Committee at meetings, and several more were invited to a workshop on health, communications, and behavior (see agenda in Appendix A). Additional information was obtained through six commissioned papers; a contribution by the Working Group on Family-Based Interventions in Chronic Disease; active participation in meetings by consultants in public health, health psychology and law; and comments on draft papers by a number of additional expert consultants prior to formal review (see Appendix B). The Committee noted great enthusiasm in the health and behavior field, and many busy experts were willing to give generously of their time and effort for little or no compensation. The Committee is grateful to all who provided assistance; those who served as consultants are acknowledged by name in Appendix B.
The report was reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments to assist the authors and the Institute of Medicine in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The content of the review comments and the draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. The committee wishes to thank the following individuals for their participation in the report review process:
Bobbie Berkowitz, University of Washington
Joel Dimsdale, University of California, San Diego
Lewis Kuller, University of Pittsburgh
Michael Marmot, University College, London Medical School
James Prochaska, University of Rhode Island
Sally Shumaker, Wake Forest University Medical School
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report
before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Paul Cleary, Harvard Medical School and Maureen Henderson, University of Washington. Appointed by the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.