Behaviour change is key to increasing the uptake of evidence surrounding well-being activities into healthcare practice \citep*{Francis_2012}. Efforts should be targeted to individuals with chronic conditions, given that four of the leading non-communicable diseases (namely cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and respiratory disease) are mostly preventable through positive health behaviours (Marteau, Hollands & Kelly, 2015). However, behaviour change is not simply an easy choice an individual makes (Kelly & Barker, 2016) and successful change requires more than communication of personalised risk information \citep*{French_2017}. or educational intervention; both of which have minimal impact upon inducing sustained change. Accordingly, behaviour change must be understood through comprehensive models and facilitated through guiding framework's and appropriate change-inducing strategies.
Behaviour change is conceptualised in some models as a series of dynamic and distinguishable non-linear stages. Possibly the most referenced model represented within the literature
\citep{Davis_2014} concerns the The Trans-Theoretical Model (Prochaska et al., 1992; Prochaska & Velicer, 1997)or 'Stages of Change' model. Here, individuals are considered to be at different stages of readiness to adopt positive health behaviours, including pre-contemplation (no intent to change), contemplation of change, preparation for change, taking action, behaviour maintenance and behaviour termination. Here, self-efficacy is a central denominator of behaviour change stages (Prochaska et al., 1992). Crucially, this model holds the capacity to serve as a foundation for tailoring interventions to participants based on their stage of change, applicable at both an individual and a community level (Taylor et al., 2006). Accordingly, it has been utilised to explain several health behaviours, including smoking, exercise, alcohol use, and screening behaviours (Marshall & Biddle, 2001; Rosen, 2000).
However, this stage model goes not without criticism (West, 2005) and its empirical support has been questioned by systematic review findings (e.g., Cahill, Lancaster, & Green, 2010; Etter & Perneger, 1999; Littell & Girvin, 2002; Whitelaw, Baldwin, Bunton, & Flynn, 2000). Nevertheless, determining a recipient's stage of change may prove useful to providing personalised intervention support.