Behavior has a broad and central role in health. Behavioral interventions can be effectively used to prevent disease, improve management of existing disease, increase quality of life, and reduce healthcare costs. A summary is presented of evidence for these conclusions in cardiovascular disease/diabetes, cancer, and HIV/AIDS as well as with key risk factors: tobacco use, poor diet, physical inactivity, and excessive alcohol consumption. For each, documentation is made of (1) moderation of genetic and other fundamental biological influences by behaviors and social–environmental factors, (2) impacts of behaviors on health, (3) success of behavioral interventions in prevention, (4) disease management, (5) and quality of life, and (6) improvements in the health of populations through behavioral health promotion programs. Evidence indicates the cost effectiveness and value of behavioral interventions, especially relative to other common health services, as well as the value they add in terms of quality of life. Pertinent to clinicians and their patients as well as to health policy and population health, the benefits of behavioral interventions extend beyond impacts on a particular disease or risk factor. Rather, they include broad effects and benefits on prevention, disease management, and well-being across the life span. Among priorities for dissemination research, the application of behavioral approaches is challenged by diverse barriers, including socioeconomic barriers linked to health disparities. However, behavioral approaches including those emphasizing community and social influences appear to be useful in addressing such challenges. In sum, behavioral approaches should have a central place in prevention and health care of the 21st century.

Prospective data from the California Tobacco Surveys (n = 2066) were used to perform a critical test of the Prochaska et al. (1991) stages of change model. When the stages of change model was used as a stand alone predictor, smokers in preparation at baseline were more likely to be in cessation at follow-up than smokers in pre-contemplation at baseline (ORadj = 1.9). When stage membership was combined with baseline measures of addiction including smoking behaviors and quitting history, it was not a significant predictor of future cessation. A prediction equation that combined daily vs. occasional smoking, cigarettes per day smoked, life-time quits of at least a year, and quits of more than 5 days in the previous year discriminated smokers in cessation at follow-up of 1 to 2 years better than did the stages of change model. The area under the ROC curve for the equation based on addiction measures was 69.3% vs. 55.1% for the stages of change. Cessation rates ranged from 7.7% to 35.7% for the four-category addiction equation compared with 15.1% to 24.9% for stages of change model.

Randomly assigned 119 adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to an 8-week comprehensive rehabilitation program or to an 8-week education control program. Comprehensive pulmonary rehabilitation included education, physical and respiratory therapy instruction, psychosocial support, and supervised exercise training, education control included biweekly classroom instruction and discussions on respiratory therapy, medical aspects of lung disease, clinical pharmacology, and diet, but no exercise training. Both groups received extensive physiological and psychosocial evaluation before and after the intervention. Six months after enrollment, patients randomly assigned to the rehabilitation program showed significant increases in exercise endurance, whereas patients randomly assigned to control program showed Requests for reprints should be sent to

No abstract

, Volume 221, Ni AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE Science serves its readers as a forum for the presentation and discussion of important issues related to the advancement of science, including the presentation of minority or conflicting points of view, rather than by publishing only material on which a consensus has been reached. Accordingly, all articles published in Science-including editorials, news and comment, and book reviews-are signed and reflect the individual views of the authors and not official points of view adopted by the AAAS or the institutions with which the authors are affiliated.