Prevalence and scholarly impact of observational versus experimental research in health psychology and behavioral medicine.

Objective This study examines what kinds of evidence are used and valued in advancing the goals of health psychology and behavioral medicine. As no systematic analysis of the prevalence and scholarly impact of different research designs appears to be available, the present research addressed three questions: How often are observational and experimental designs used in psychological research on health? Has the prevalence of these designs changed over time? And what is the scholarly impact of research using observational versus experimental designs? Method All quantitative, empirical studies published in six prominent journals between 2012 and 2016, and during the first six months of 2024 were coded for use of observational and experimental designs. Citations were identified using Scopus. Results Observational studies were 2.3 times more prevalent than experimental studies during the period, 2012-2016 (69.4% vs. 30.6%) and were even more common in the first half of 2024 (77.1% vs. 22.9%). Citation rates for observational and experimental studies were equivalent (M  = 31.2 and 33.0, respectively). Conclusions This study indicates the prevalence and scholarly impact of different research designs in health psychology and behavioral medicine and offers a starting point for discussions concerning the optimal balance between observational and experimental research. The findings invite researchers to contemplate and debate what proportion of observational and experimental studies will best promote the goals of our field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]