Health Action Planning – A Digitally Delivered Physical Activity Intervention
|
If you are the presenter of this abstract (or if you cite this abstract in a talk or on a poster), please show the QR code in your slide or poster (QR code contains this URL). |
Abstract
Introduction: Physical activity has well recorded benefits to health, both minimising risks of certain long term conditions, but also improving health and wellbeing. Despite the positive assets, engagement in physical activity is not widespread.
It is evident from previous literature that targeting perceived behavioural control to enhance control cognitions as well as bridging the intention behaviour gap through techniques of goal setting, and planning, is crucial in eliciting behavioural change. Three aspects of the literature however remain ambiguous. The factors noted, have been well documented and their use in face to face interventions shows favourable results. Their use in an online intervention has been less common and the results inconclusive. Secondly, it is not clear that practitioner support in online interventions is required. And finally, despite the acknowledged value of action and coping plans the content of plans has rarely been examined in the context of physical activity outcomes.
Objectives: The current study sets out to explore the effectiveness of an online intervention based on increasing perceived behavioural control and goal-setting/planning and practitioner support on uptake of physical activity. In addition the current study set out to examine the goals of action and coping plans in concert with records of physical activity.
Methods: 4 groups of individuals were compared: those undergoing (a) practitioner support alone, (b) Intervention targeting physical activity perceived behavioural control and goal-setting and planning alone, (c) practitioner support & Intervention and (d) no intervention (controls). Over a period of four weeks, physical activity was measured using diaries and pedometer readings.
Results: 120 participants were recruited, 87 participants commenced the intervention and 67 completed. 52 % of the intervention groups (b) and (c) submitted action and coping plans and 84% of these participants achieved targets set. Differences in physical activity walking between the four different conditions were not significant and remained not significant when the groups were collapsed into intervention in comparison to non-intervention, and practitioner support versus non practitioner support.
Conclusions: Practitioner support and physical activity perceived behavioural control and goal-setting/planning appear to have limited effect on the uptake of physical activity. However, the goals that individuals make are important predictors of what they will subsequently achieve. The differences, between the physical activity records of each of the groups, though not to a significant level, indicate that there would be merit in conducting the study with larger numbers. Given the limited power due to small sample sizes, the results must be treated with caution.
It is evident from previous literature that targeting perceived behavioural control to enhance control cognitions as well as bridging the intention behaviour gap through techniques of goal setting, and planning, is crucial in eliciting behavioural change. Three aspects of the literature however remain ambiguous. The factors noted, have been well documented and their use in face to face interventions shows favourable results. Their use in an online intervention has been less common and the results inconclusive. Secondly, it is not clear that practitioner support in online interventions is required. And finally, despite the acknowledged value of action and coping plans the content of plans has rarely been examined in the context of physical activity outcomes.
Objectives: The current study sets out to explore the effectiveness of an online intervention based on increasing perceived behavioural control and goal-setting/planning and practitioner support on uptake of physical activity. In addition the current study set out to examine the goals of action and coping plans in concert with records of physical activity.
Methods: 4 groups of individuals were compared: those undergoing (a) practitioner support alone, (b) Intervention targeting physical activity perceived behavioural control and goal-setting and planning alone, (c) practitioner support & Intervention and (d) no intervention (controls). Over a period of four weeks, physical activity was measured using diaries and pedometer readings.
Results: 120 participants were recruited, 87 participants commenced the intervention and 67 completed. 52 % of the intervention groups (b) and (c) submitted action and coping plans and 84% of these participants achieved targets set. Differences in physical activity walking between the four different conditions were not significant and remained not significant when the groups were collapsed into intervention in comparison to non-intervention, and practitioner support versus non practitioner support.
Conclusions: Practitioner support and physical activity perceived behavioural control and goal-setting/planning appear to have limited effect on the uptake of physical activity. However, the goals that individuals make are important predictors of what they will subsequently achieve. The differences, between the physical activity records of each of the groups, though not to a significant level, indicate that there would be merit in conducting the study with larger numbers. Given the limited power due to small sample sizes, the results must be treated with caution.
Medicine 2.0® is happy to support and promote other conferences and workshops in this area. Contact us to produce, disseminate and promote your conference or workshop under this label and in this event series. In addition, we are always looking for hosts of future World Congresses. Medicine 2.0® is a registered trademark of JMIR Publications Inc., the leading academic ehealth publisher.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.