Webb Therapy Uncategorized The stages of change model

The stages of change model

‘The stages of change model’ was developed by Prochaska and DiClemente. Heard of them? It informs the development of brief and ongoing intervention strategies by providing a framework for what interventions/strategies are useful for particular individuals. Practitioners need an understanding of which ‘stage of change’ a person is in so that the most appropriate strategy for the individual client is selected.

There are five common stages within the Stages of Change model and a 6th known as “relapse”:

1. In the precontemplation stage, the person is either unaware of a problem that needs to be addressed OR aware of it but unwilling to change the problematic behaviour [or a behaviour they want to change. It does not always have to be labelled as “problematic”].

2. This is followed by a contemplation stage, characterized by ambivalence regarding the problem behaviour and in which the advantages and disadvantages of the behaviour, and of changing it, are evaluated, leading in many cases to decision-making.

3. In the preparation stage, a resolution to change is made, accompanied by a commitment to a plan of action. It is not uncommon for an individual to return to the contemplation stage or stay in the preparation stage for a while, for many reasons.

4. This plan is executed in the action stage, in which the individual engages in activities designed to bring change about and in coping with difficulties that arise.

5. If successful action is sustained, the person moves to the maintenance stage, in which an effort is made to consolidate the changes that have been made. Once these changes have been integrated into the lifestyle, the individual exits from the stages of change.

6. Relapse, however, is common, and it may take several journeys around the cycle of change, known as “recycling”, before change becomes permanent i.e., a lifestyle change; a sustainable change.

(Adapted from Heather & Honekopp, 2017)

Related Post

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind.Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind.

Human-Kind. Isn’t that lovely. We have moved away from the patriarchal term mankind – ‘man’ who has not always been ‘kind’, necessarily – toward equality between the sexes and acknowledging gender fluidity. Noah touches on this. If you’re interested in the evolution of humanity and how we are capable of co-operating as a global community, give this book a go. You may experience information overload – but when condensing 2.4 million years into less than 500 pages, Harari goes alright. I’m someone who didn’t pay attention to history at school so I found this book enlightening, empowering and also disheartening at times. Harari writes about the breakthroughs of the Cognitive, Agricultural and Scientific Revolutions. The power of human imagination, math and language has been instrumental in the development of humankind into an apex predator, and the destruction of everything else.

Unhelpful Cognitions (thoughts) and DistortionsUnhelpful Cognitions (thoughts) and Distortions

Unhelpful Cognitions

Mental Filter: This thinking style involves a “filtering in” and “filtering out” process – a sort of “tunnel vision”, focusing on only one part of a situation and ignoring the rest. Usually this means looking at the negative parts of a situation and forgetting the positive parts, and the whole picture is coloured by what may be a single negative detail.

Jumping to Conclusions: We jump to conclusions when we assume that we know what someone else is thinking (mind reading) and when we make predictions about what is going to happen in the future (predictive thinking).

Mind reading: Is a habitual thinking pattern characterized by expecting others to know what you’re thinking without having to tell them or expecting to know what others are thinking without them telling you. This is very common, and most people can identify. Oftentimes, when we are telling someone a story about an interaction, we’ve had with someone else, we will make mind reading assumptions without actually having fact or evidence e.g., “They haven’t phoned me in two weeks so they must be angry with me for cancelling on them last week.”

Personalisation: This involves blaming yourself for everything that goes wrong or could go wrong, even when you may only be partly responsible or not responsible at all. You might be taking 100% responsibility for the occurrence of external events. It can also involve blaming someone else for something for which they have no responsibility. This can often occur when setting a boundary with someone and you take responsibility for their guilt or anger.

Catastrophising: Catastrophising occurs when we “blow things out of proportion” and we view the situation as terrible, awful, dreadful, and horrible, even though the reality is that the problem itself may be quite small.

Black & White Thinking: Also known as splitting, dichotomous thinking, and all-or-nothing thinking, involves seeing only one side or the other (the positives or the negatives, for example). You are either wrong or right, good or bad and so on. There are no in-betweens or shades of grey.

Should-ing and Must-ing: Sometimes by saying “I should…” or “I must…” you can put unreasonable demands or pressure on yourself and others. Although these statements are not always unhelpful (e.g., “I should not get drunk and drive home”), they can sometimes create unrealistic expectations.

Should-ing and must-ing can be a psychological distortion because it can “deny reality” e.g., I shouldn’t have had so much to drink last night. This is helpful in the sense that it communicates to us that we have exceeded our boundaries, however, saying “shouldn’t” about a past situation can be futile because it cannot be changed.

Overgeneralisation: When we overgeneralise, we take one instance in the past or present, and impose it on all current or future situations. If we say, “You always…” or “Everyone…”, or “I never…” then we are probably overgeneralising.

Labelling: We label ourselves and others when we make global statements based on behaviour in specific situations. We might use this label even though there are many more examples that are not consistent with that label. Labelling is a cognitive distortion whereby we take one characteristic of a person/group/situation and apply it to the whole person/group/situation. Example: “Because I failed a test, I am a failure” or “Because she is frequently late to work, she is irresponsible”.

Emotional Reasoning: This thinking style involves basing your view of situations or yourself on the way you are feeling. For example, the only evidence that something bad is going to happen is that you feel like something bad is going to happen. Emotions and feelings are real however they are not necessarily indicative of objective truth or fact.

Magnification and Minimisation: In this thinking style, you magnify the positive attributes of other people and minimise your own positive attributes. Also known as the binocular effect on thinking. Often it means that you enlarge (magnify) the positive attributes of other people and shrink (minimise) your own attributes, just like looking at the world through either end of the same pair of binoculars.

(CCI, 2008)

Mortality DeterminantsMortality Determinants


Overall Global Leading Cause of Death

  • Ischemic heart disease (coronary artery disease) – Still the #1 cause of death worldwide.
  • Followed by: Stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), lower respiratory infections, and cancer (e.g., lung, liver, colorectal).

Breakdown by Category

By Age

Age GroupLeading Cause(s) of Death
Infants (<1)Neonatal conditions, birth complications, infections
Children (1–14)Accidents (injuries), infections (low-income countries), cancers (e.g., leukemia)
Youth (15–24)Road injuries, suicide, homicide (varies by country)
Adults (25–44)Injuries (road, drug overdose), suicide, HIV/AIDS (in some countries), heart disease
Middle Age (45–64)Heart disease, cancer (esp. lung, colorectal, breast), liver disease
Older Adults (65+)Heart disease, stroke, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease

By Gender/Sex

GroupLeading Cause of Death
Cisgender MenHeart disease, cancer (lung, liver), accidents
Cisgender WomenHeart disease, cancer (breast, lung), stroke
Transgender IndividualsElevated risk from violence, suicide, and HIV/AIDS (especially trans women of color); limited large-scale data
Non-binaryInsufficient population-specific data, but risks often parallel those of trans populations or assigned sex at birth

By Race/Ethnicity (Example: United States)

GroupTop CausesUnique Issues
White (non-Hispanic)Heart disease, cancer, drug overdose
Black or African AmericanHeart disease, cancer, higher stroke risk
Hispanic/LatinoHeart disease, cancer, diabetes
Native AmericanAccidents, liver disease, diabetes, suicide
Asian AmericanCancer (leading cause), stroke, heart disease

Note: Disparities arise from systemic inequalities, access to care, and social determinants of health.


By Sexuality (LGBTQ+)

  • Limited global data, but in many regions:
    • Higher risk of suicide, mental health disorders, substance abuse, HIV/AIDS (especially among MSM and trans women).
    • Discrimination and healthcare avoidance contribute to worsened outcomes.
  • Common causes of death still include heart disease and cancer, with higher rates of premature death linked to stigma and healthcare disparities.

By Geographic Region

RegionLeading Cause(s)
High-Income CountriesHeart disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s, stroke
Low- and Middle-Income CountriesInfectious diseases (TB, HIV), maternal mortality, stroke, heart disease
AfricaHIV/AIDS, malaria, lower respiratory infections
AsiaStroke, heart disease, chronic lung disease
North AmericaHeart disease, cancer, drug overdose (opioid crisis)
EuropeHeart disease, stroke, cancer
Latin AmericaViolence (in younger adults), heart disease, diabetes

By Profession

  • Agricultural/farm workers: High injury rates, pesticide exposure, suicide
  • Construction workers: Falls, injuries, exposure to toxins (e.g., asbestos)
  • Healthcare workers: Infectious disease, burnout, mental health risks
  • Military/first responders: Combat-related injuries, PTSD, suicide
  • Office workers: Sedentary lifestyle risks (heart disease, diabetes)

Occupation-linked deaths often relate to environmental exposures, physical risks, or psychological stressors.


Conclusion:

Across almost all demographics, heart disease remains the leading cause of death, followed by cancer, stroke, and—in certain populations—accidents, suicide, or infectious diseases. However, the underlying causes (social, economic, political) differ significantly based on identity, geography, and profession.

Would you like this formatted into a chart, infographic, or specific to a country or report you’re working on?