Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Dental Research
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sniehotta, F.F.
Right arrow Articles by Dombrowski, S.U.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sniehotta, F.F.
Right arrow Articles by Dombrowski, S.U.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Dental Health
*Healthy Living
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Clinical

Randomized Controlled Trial of a One-minute Intervention Changing Oral Self-care Behavior

F.F. Sniehotta1,*, V. Araújo Soares2,3 and S.U. Dombrowski1

1 University of Aberdeen, College of Life Sciences and Medicine, King’s College, William Guild Building, Aberdeen, AB24 2UB, Scotland, UK;
2 The Robert Gordon University, Scotland; and
3 Alliance for Self Care Research, Scotland

Correspondence: * corresponding author, f.sniehotta{at}abdn.ac.uk


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Non-compliance with oral self-care recommendations, despite education and motivation, is a major problem in preventive dentistry. Forming concrete if-then action plans has been successful in changing self-care behavior in other areas of preventive medicine. This is the first trial to test the effects of a brief planning intervention on interdental hygiene behavior. Two hundred thirty-nine participants received a packet of floss, information, and a flossing guide. They were randomly assigned to a control or an intervention group. The intervention took 1.16 minutes and consisted of forming a concrete plan of where, when, and how to floss. Baseline measures and two-week and two-month follow-ups included self-report, residual floss, and theory of planned behavior variables. The intervention significantly affected flossing in that group at two-week and two-month follow-ups, as compared with the control group. This study provides evidence for the effects of a concise intervention on oral self-care behavior.

Key Words: self-care • prevention • behavioral intervention • oral hygiene • theory of planned behavior


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Considerable progress has been made toward our understanding of the pathophysiological determinants of oral disease. Efficacious techniques for preventing caries and periodontal disease include self-performed oral hygiene measures (e.g., flossing), vaccination, and fluoridation (Nyvad et al., 2004). Although these measures are efficient under optimal conditions (i.e., fully controlled clinical trials), their effectiveness under everyday circumstances can be improved. Non-compliance with oral self-care recommendations attenuates potential effects of preventive dentistry, representing a key problem in the prevention of periodontal disease (Ciancio, 2003; Widstrom, 2004). The public’s participation in their oral health is entirely behavioral (flossing, brushing, seeing a dentist, dietary behaviors, etc.). An understanding of individual self-care behavior in preventive dentistry will be paramount to facilitating control of caries and periodontal disease (ten Cate, 2004; Sniehotta et al., 2005a).

Evidence indicates that regular flossing reduces interdental plaque (Bauroth et al., 2003; Bellamy et al., 2004). Despite a lack of conclusive evidence for clinical effectiveness, flossing is considered an important method of preventing periodontal disease (Warren and Chater, 1996; Bellamy et al., 2004). Both the British (2007) and American Dental Associations (2005) recommend daily flossing, and yet flossing is infrequent (Bader, 1998; Rimondini et al., 2001). In Europe, from 30% to 60% of the adult population have medium to severe periodontitis (Petersen, 2003).

Previous research on oral self-care has predominantly investigated how determinants of motivation affect behavior. Several studies have applied the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991) and related theories in predicting oral self-care behavior (McCaul et al., 1988; Tedesco et al., 1991a,b; Rise et al., 1998; Syrjälä et al., 2002; Lavin and Groarke, 2005). According to the TPB, individuals form intentions to perform a behavior based on their attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (PBC), i.e., the perceived ease/difficulty of a behavior. Behavior is determined by behavioral intentions and PBC. The likelihood of flossing increases with higher intention and PBC. Evidence supports the theories’ assumptions, but, despite good intentions and sufficient perceived control, many people fail to act on their intentions, especially concerning regular self-care regimens. This indicates an intention-behavior gap (Orbell and Sheeran, 1998). Moreover, there is no evidence that interventions lead to sustainable changes in oral self-care. An intervention study based on Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1997) found limited evidence for the efficacy of three interventions, including motivational strategies (like social and professional support), and varied rigidity of goals (McCaul et al., 1992). Motivational interventions seeking preventive self-care behavior must therefore be augmented by interventions that enable behavioral intentions to be successfully translated (Abraham et al., 1998; Sniehotta et al., unpublished observations).

Forming a concrete action plan (implementation intention) detailing where, when, and how to act, is a simple technique proposed to facilitate intention-realization. Individuals are more likely to recognize situations and perform intended actions when they have formed a cognitive link between situational cues and concrete behavioral responses. These cognitive effects have been shown to possess automatic features that proceed without conscious intent (Gollwitzer, 1999). Compelling evidence suggests that forming if-then plans facilitates the performance of intended self-care behaviors (see Gollwitzer and Sheeran, 2006, for a meta-analysis). In dentistry, a longitudinal study found planning and past behavior to be a significant predictor of adherence to a daily flossing regimen (Schüz et al., 2006). This is the first intervention study to test the effect of the sole formation of simple if-then action plans on oral self-care behavior. We aimed to test whether a planning intervention would increase the use of dental floss in a sample of individuals who flossed infrequently, while having knowledge and motivation to floss (as addressed in a preceding lecture). Intervention participants were hypothesized to show a significantly greater increase in dental flossing than control individuals.


    METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
A 2(intervention) * 3(time) RCT was conducted with baseline measures and two-week and two-month follow-ups. This study received ethical approval at the University of Aberdeen.

Participants
Participants [mean age, 20.9 yrs (SD = 6.5; [16–53]), 77.4% female] were Scottish undergraduate students recruited after a lecture. Power-calculations to detect medium effects (d = 0.5; Gollwitzer and Sheeran, 2006) on flossing change-scores with a power of 0.90 (p < 0.05) resulted in a target sample size of 140. After receiving informed consent, we collected data via a Web site and matched participants using student IDs. Floss packets were distributed at baseline and collected after 2 wks, for measurement of residual floss.

Interventions
All participants attended a lecture that addressed oral self-care—the risk factors for caries and periodontal disease, the preventive effects and prevalence of dental flossing, and flossing technique—for 5 min. Participants completed a TPB questionnaire at baseline, and received a coded sample of dental floss (Oral-B Satin Floss, 5 m, Oral-B Laboratories, Iowa City, IA, USA), together with a flossing guide from the British Dental Hygienists’ Association. After the lecture, participants received an e-mail invitation containing a link to an online-questionnaire/intervention. This online form, hosted by the University of Aberdeen, was available for 3 subsequent days.

Participants in the intervention group received the following instructions at the end of the online questionnaire:

"You are more likely to adhere to a daily oral flossing regimen if you plan in advance where and when you want to do it. Please decide now where and when you will floss your teeth during the next two weeks. You may find it useful to floss just before or just after something else that you do regularly. Please write below where and when you will floss your teeth for the next two weeks (e.g., at 10.00 p.m. in the bathroom after brushing my teeth). I will use dental floss at _______________(WHEN) at or in _______________ (WHERE) before/after ______________(activity, e.g. washing my face)."

The time from when the participant started the Web-based questionnaire to when he/she submitted it was measured automatically. This intervention took an average of 1.16 min, as measured by a comparison of average completion times of both groups (control. 4.21 min; intervention. 5.37 min).

Control Measures
TPB variables were measured for randomization checks and dropout analyses according to established procedures (Lavin and Groarke, 2005). Additionally, we measured behavioral intentions and PBC at Time 2, to test for possible motivational intervention effects. Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are displayed in Table 1Go. High scores indicate flossing-favorable cognitions.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Table 1. Pearson Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach’s Alpha, Ranges of Baseline Theory of Planned Behavior Measures, Self-reported Flossing at All Time-points and Floss Consumed between Time 1 and Time 2
 
Outcomes
Primary outcome was a self-reported 7-day recall of dental flossing, validated in previous research against residual floss measures (Schüz et al., 2006) and diary methods (Lavin and Groarke, 2005). Residual floss was also used as a secondary outcome and for validation of self-reports. Outcomes were assessed 2 wks and 2 mos after the intervention.

Randomization
Participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention or a control group after completing the baseline questionnaire using a computer algorithm integrated into the online questionnaire.

Blindness
Participants were unaware that the study would include assignment to groups. A research assistant blind to participants’ conditions measured the residual floss.

Statistical Methods
We analyzed the data using SPSS 13. Addressing the key hypotheses, and controlling for baseline measures, we used Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVAs) to test group differences in the changes of self-reported flossing. Effect sizes were indicated as partial eta-squared ({eta}2). We tested differences in floss consumed at Time 2 by forming 3 groups, using a chi2 ({chi}2) test. Relationships between flossing measures and TPB variables were tested by Pearson correlations. Randomization checks and drop-out analyses were conducted by independent-samples t tests and {chi}2 tests. Missing values were imputed by the Estimation Maximization Imputation Method.


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Recruitment
The flowchart is presented in the FigGo.


Figure 1
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Figure. Flowchart recruitment.

 
Drop-out Analyses
Independent-sample t tests indicated that participants who discontinued to Time 2 did not differ from those who continued participation with regard to age [t (1.233) = 0.582; p = 0.56], gender ({chi}2 = 2.308; p = 0.13), previous flossing behavior [t (1.237) = 0.091; p = 0.93], or baseline TPB measures (all p > 0.35). Likewise, no differences were found between participants who did/did not complete Time 3 measurements in terms of age, gender, previous flossing behavior, and TPB variables (all p > 0.15). Differential loss to follow-up did not occur. Hence, the longitudinal sample is representative of the baseline sample. The drop-outs did not systematically bias the longitudinal dataset.

Randomization Check
Independent-sample t tests indicated that control and intervention groups did not differ with regard to age, gender, previous flossing (all p > 0.16), or TPB variables (all p > 0.44), indicating successful randomization.

Baseline Data
Correlations between all baseline data with flossing measures at Times 2 and 3, together with mean, standard deviation, range, and Cronbach’s alpha where applicable are shown in Table 1Go.

High mean values for TPB variables (all means > 5 on scales ranging from 1–7) showed that participants held positive cognitions about flossing and were highly motivated to floss. Intercorrelations supported the TPB, since behavioral intentions were significantly correlated with attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC. Intentions and PBC showed substantial correlations to self-reported flossing at all time-points and to the floss used in the first 2 wks (Table 1Go).

Initial flossing levels were low (1.5 times per week), supporting the rationale for sampling Scottish university students (Table 1Go). Only 12 (5.1%) participants reported flossing the recommended 7 times a week, and the majority of participants (123; 52.3%) reported no flossing in the previous week. Between Times 1 and 2, levels of flossing increased strongly [F (1.194) = 233.696; p < 0.001; {eta}2 = 0.546; actual changes in groups—intervention, 1.3–5.0; control, 1.8–4.4]. At Time 3, levels of flossing had dropped, but were still higher than baseline levels [F (1.133) = 10.259; p = 0.02; {eta}2 = – 0.072; actual changes in groups—intervention, 1.3–2.4; control, 1.8–2.2]. The measure of consumed floss (based on floss residuals in the returned floss packets) was substantially correlated with the concurrent Time 2 self-report (r = 0.56). Allowing for attenuation due to the fact that 5 meters of floss are insufficient for 2 wks of regular flossing, this correlation supports the validity of the self-reports (Table 1Go).

Intervention Effects
Adjusted means (controlled for baseline), standard errors, F, p, and {eta}2 statistics for flossing at Times 2 and 3 are shown in Table 2Go.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Table 2. Adjusted Means (controlled for baseline), Standard Errors, 95% Confidence Intervals (CI), F, p, and {eta}2 Statistics for Flossing at Time 2 and Time 3
 
At Time 2, the intervention effect was highly significant. Participants in the intervention group showed a greater increase of flossing compared with the control group (adjusted means: intervention group = 5.2; control group = 4.2). The {eta}2 statistic indicates a small-to-medium intervention effect size. Furthermore, ANCOVAs revealed that the intervention did not affect intentions to floss [F (1.192) = 0.357, p = 0.59] or PBC [F (1.192) = 0.772, p = 0.38].

At Time 3, 2 mos after the intervention, the effect was still significant (intervention group = 2.7; control group = 1.9), and the effect size was only slightly reduced. This indicates that this simple and brief action planning intervention affected flossing behavior over a period of 2 mos (Table 2Go).

Three groups were formed when the measures of consumed floss were analyzed. Participants who returned unused floss packets or failed to return them were classified as "floss not used" (n = 135). Participants who had returned empty floss packets were classified as "floss finished" (n = 38), and all others as "floss not finished" (n = 66).

The frequencies of all three groups in the intervention and control groups are shown in Table 3Go. Compared with 64% among the control participants, only 48.2% of the intervention group were classified as "floss not used". Likewise, only 12% of control participants finished the provided 5-m floss packets, compared with 20.2% of intervention participants (Table 3Go). These differences were significant ({chi}2 = 6.367; p = 0.041). Thus, the objective measures of residual floss supported findings from the self-report measures. This indicates that the action planning intervention was successful at facilitating dental flossing.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Table 3. Frequencies of Floss Packets Returned Unused or Not Returned, Packets Used But Not Finished, and Finished Floss Packets in Action Planning and Control Groups
 

    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
This is the first study to provide evidence that a simple, theory-based, one-minute intervention can facilitate changes in oral self-care behavior. The formation of an if-then plan—specifying when, where, and how to act—can increase the salience of the target situation and enhance the prospective memory for intended action. This encourages individuals to act in accordance with their intentions. In this study, changes in flossing behavior were found 2 wks and 2 mos following the intervention. Individuals in the inter ventions group showed a higher increase in flossing of 1.1 (Time 2) and 0.7 (Time 3) times a week compared with the control group. These results corresponded to evidence in other areas of preventive self-care behavior and showed similar effect sizes (Gollwitzer, 1999; Gollwitzer and Sheeran, 2006). It is noteworthy, however, that very few previous studies have tested planning effects over durations greater than a month. The intervention did not affect motivational TPB factors, but increased flossing directly.

A previous study involving a similar sample failed to find planning effects on dental flossing (Lavin and Groarke, 2005). This might have been due to confounding effects of behavioral measurement, since participants were required to record flossing in a diary over a three-week period. Keeping a diary has been found to be a strong self-monitoring intervention that enhances oral self-care when the diary is kept (Sniehotta et al., 2005b). Even with participants keeping a daily diary, however, the formation of action plans will not foster additional effects regarding flossing frequency. Conversely, planning processes have been shown to include automatic effects that help individuals to recognize critical situations even when they do not self-monitor, to remember and initiate intended actions (Gollwitzer, 1999). This study shows that, unlike diary techniques, planning has effects that endure after the initial intervention.

The results of this study need replication with other samples, to gauge the generalizability of the findings and obviate potential sources of bias caused by drop-outs and the use of a student sample. Young adults are a focal group for interventions, because it is at this stage of life that self-regulated self-care behaviors are developed. In Scotland, about half of all young adults pursue a university career, and, given oral self-care’s poor baseline data, this makes the utilized sample of particular importance. Future research should investigate the efficacy of action planning in dental consultations and as part of dental hygienist treatment, and focus on factors that facilitate long-term maintenance and habit-building (Sniehotta et al., unpublished observations).

In summary, this study provides evidence for the effect of simple action plans on oral self-care behavior, and corresponds to findings in other areas of preventive medicine.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This research was funded by the University of Aberdeen. The authors thank Oral-B Gillette for providing the floss packets, and Caroline Rowlings for her assistance during data assessment.

Received for publication January 18, 2006. Revision received February 21, 2007. Accepted for publication March 14, 2007.


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  • Abraham C, Sheeran P, Johnston M (1998). From health beliefs to self-regulation: theoretical advances in the psychology of action control. Psychol Health 13:569–591.[CrossRef]
  • ADA (2005). Cleaning your teeth and gums (oral hygiene). Retrieved November 11, 2005, from http://www.ada.org/public/topics/cleaning_faq.asp#4.
  • Ajzen I (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211.[CrossRef]
  • Bader HI (1998). Floss or die: implications for dental professionals. Dent Today 17:76–78, 80–82.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Bandura A (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
  • Bauroth K, Charles CH, Mankodi SM, Simmoms K, Zhao Q, Kumar LD (2003). The efficacy of an essential oil antiseptic mouthrinse vs. dental floss in controlling interproximal gingivitis: a comparative study. J Am Dent Assoc 134:359–365.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Bellamy P, Barlow A, Puri G, Wright KI, Mussett A, Zhou X (2004). A new in vivo interdental sampling method comparing a daily flossing regime versus a manual brush control. J Clin Dent 15:59–65.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • BDA (2007). Flossing. Retrieved February 3, 2007, from http://www.bdasmile.org/adults/adults.cfm?contentid=1267&contentparentid=1036.
  • Ciancio S (2003). Improving oral health: current considerations. J Clin Periodontol 30(Suppl 5):4–6.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Gollwitzer PM (1999). Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. Am Psychol 54:493–503.[CrossRef]
  • Gollwitzer PM, Sheeran P (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and processes. Adv Soc Exp Psychol 38:249–268.
  • Lavin D, Groarke A (2005). Dental floss behaviour: a test of the predictive utility of the Theory of Planned Behaviour and the effects of making implementation intentions. Psychol Health Med 10:243–252.
  • McCaul KD, O’Neill HK, Glasgow RE (1988). Predicting the performance of dental hygiene behaviors: an examination of the Fishbein and Ajzen model and self-efficacy expectations. J Appl Soc Psychol 18:114–128.[CrossRef]
  • McCaul KD, Glasgow RG, O’Neill HK (1992). The problem of creating habits: establishing health-protective dental behaviors. Health Psychol 11:101–110.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Nyvad B, ten Cate JM, Robinson C, editors (2004). Cariology in the 21st century. State of the art and future perspectives. Caries Res 38(3):170 pp.
  • Orbell S, Sheeran P (1998). ’Inclined abstainers’: a problem for predicting health-related behaviour. Br J Soc Psychol 37:151–165.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Petersen PE (2003). The World Oral Health Report 2003: continuous improvement of oral health in the 21st century—the approach of the WHO Global Oral Health Programme. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 31(Suppl 1):3–23.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Rimondini L, Zolfanelli B, Bernardi F, Bez C (2001). Self-preventive oral behavior in an Italian university student population. J Clin Periodontol 28:207–211.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Rise J, Åstrøm AN, Sutton S (1998). Predicting intentions and use of dental floss among adolescents: an application of the theory of planned behaviour. Psychol Health 13:223–236.
  • Schüz B, Sniehotta FF, Wiedemann A, Seemann R (2006). Adherence to a daily flossing regimen in university students: effects of planning when, where, how, and what to do in the face of barriers. J Clin Periodontol 33:612–619.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Sniehotta FF, Schüz B, Wiedemann A, Seemann R (2005a). Effects of a self-monitoring intervention on action control and oral self-care. Psychol Health 20(Suppl 1):253.
  • Sniehotta FF, Schwarzer R, Scholz U, Schüz B (2005b). Action planning and coping planning for long-term lifestyle change: theory and assessment. Eur J Soc Psychol 35:565–576.[CrossRef]
  • Syrjälä AM, Niskanen MC, Knuuttila ML (2002). The theory of reasoned action in describing tooth brushing, dental caries and diabetes adherence among diabetic patients. J Clin Periodontol 29:427–432.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Tedesco LA, Keffer MA, Davis EL (1991a). Social cognitive theory and relapse prevention: reframing patient compliance. J Dent Educ 55:575–581.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Tedesco LA, Keffer MA, Fleck-Kandath C (1991b). Self-efficacy, reasoned action, and oral health behavior reports: a social cognitive approach to compliance. J Behav Med 14:341–355.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • ten Cate JM (2004). Fluorides in caries prevention and control: empiricism or science. Caries Res 38:254–257.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Warren PR, Chater BV (1996). An overview of established interdental cleaning methods. J Clin Dent 7(3 Spec No):65–69.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Widstrom E (2004). Prevention and dental health services. Oral Health Prev Dent 2(Suppl 1):255–258.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 86, No. 7, 641-645 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910708600711


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Health Educ ResHome page
B. Schuz, F. F. Sniehotta, N. Mallach, A. U. Wiedemann, and R. Schwarzer
Predicting transitions from preintentional, intentional and actional stages of change
Health Educ. Res., February 1, 2009; 24(1): 64 - 75.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sniehotta, F.F.
Right arrow Articles by Dombrowski, S.U.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sniehotta, F.F.
Right arrow Articles by Dombrowski, S.U.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Dental Health
*Healthy Living
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?