A review of empirical studies on proenvironmental behaviors in organizational contexts is presented. Twenty‐one studies met the inclusion criteria. Quantitative effect sizes were compared where statistics were available and research designs were comparable. Characteristics of the dependent variable and the targeted organizational (sub)populations were systematically examined. With respect to individual‐specific determinants, the results show relatively consistent effects for attitudinal determinants and past behavior. For organization‐specific influences, management and physical facilitation were frequently significant. Findings related to other factors are less conclusive. Given the available evidence and feasibility considerations, it is recommended that interventions focus on physical facilitation, tailored persuasive communication, and active engagement of middle management. It is further recommended that future research integrates the analysis of individual and organizational determinants.

ObjectiveTo examine patterns of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake over three biennial invitation rounds in the National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England.MethodsWe analysed data from the BCSP's Southern Hub for individuals (n=62 099) aged 60–64 years at the time of first invitation to screening with a follow-up period that allowed for two further biennial invitations. Data on sex, age and a neighbourhood-level measure of socioeconomic deprivation were used in the analysis. Outcomes included uptake of guaiac-based faecal occult blood (gFOB) test screening, inadequate gFOB screening (≥1 test kit(s) returned but failed to complete further gFOB tests needed to reach a conclusive test result), test positivity, compliance with follow-up examinations (usually colonoscopy) and diagnostic outcomes.ResultsOverall gFOB uptake was 57.4% in the first, 60.9% in the second and 66.2% in third biennial invitation round. This resulted in 70.1% of the initial cohort having responded at least once, 60.7% at least twice and 44.4% three times. Participation in the first round was strongly predictive of participation in the second round (‘Previous Responders’: 86.6% vs ‘Previous Non-Responders’: 23.1%). Participation in the third round was highest among ‘Consistent Screeners’ (94.5%), followed by ‘Late Entrants’ (78.0%), ‘Dropouts’ (59.8%) and ‘Consistent Non-Responders’ (14.6%). Socioeconomic inequalities in uptake were observed across the three rounds, but sex inequalities decreased over rounds. Inadequate gFOB screening was influenced by screening history and socioeconomic deprivation. Screening history was the only significant predictor of follow-up compliance.ConclusionsScreening history is associated with overall gFOB uptake, inadequate gFOB screening and follow-up compliance. Socioeconomic deprivation is also consistently associated with lower gFOB uptake and inadequate gFOB screening. Improving regular screening among identified ‘at-risk’ groups is important for the effectiveness of CRC screening programmes.

The current article details a position statement and recommendations for future research and practice on planning and implementation intentions in health contexts endorsed by the Synergy Expert Group. The Group comprised world-leading researchers in health and social psychology and behavioural medicine who convened to discuss priority issues in planning interventions in health contexts and develop a set of recommendations for future research and practice. The Expert Group adopted a nominal groups approach and voting system to elicit and structure priority issues in planning interventions and implementation intentions research. Fortytwo priority issues identified in initial discussions were further condensed to 18 key issues, including definitions of planning and implementation intentions and 17 priority research areas.Each issue was subjected to voting for consensus among group members and formed the basis of the position statement and recommendations. Specifically, the Expert Group endorsed statements and recommendations in the following areas: generic definition of planning and specific definition of implementation intentions, recommendations for better testing of mechanisms, guidance on testing the effects of moderators of planning interventions, recommendations on the social aspects of planning interventions, identification of the preconditions that moderate effectiveness of planning interventions, and recommendations for research on how people use plans.

This was the first study to compare barriers to participation in organised screening programmes for CRC, breast and cervical cancer. Cancer screening tests share many barriers, but dislike of the test appears to be a stronger barrier to CRC screening. Women who are non-participants in more than one programme may have more global barriers to screening, such as cancer fatalism. The findings suggest that uptake of CRC screening could be improved by targeting the unpleasantness of stool sampling.