Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHowlett, Neilen
dc.contributor.authorTrivedi, Dakshaen
dc.contributor.authorTroop, Nicholas A.en
dc.contributor.authorChater, Angel M.en
dc.date.accessioned2018-02-19T10:46:34Z
dc.date.available2018-02-19T10:46:34Z
dc.date.issued2018-02-28
dc.identifier.citationHowlett N, Trivedi D, Troop NA, Chater AM (2018) 'Are physical activity interventions for healthy inactive adults effective in promoting behavior change and maintenance, and which behavior change techniques are effective? : a systematic review and meta-analysis', Translational Behavioral Medicine, 9 (1), pp.147-157.en
dc.identifier.issn1869-6716
dc.identifier.pmid29506209
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/tbm/iby010
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10547/622507
dc.description.abstractBackground: Physical inactivity and sedentary behavior relate to poor health outcomes independently. Healthy inactive adults are a key target population for prevention. Purpose: This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of physical activity and/or sedentary behavior interventions, measured post-intervention (behavior change) and at follow-up (behavior change maintenance), to identify behavior change techniques (BCT) within, and report on fidelity. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, targeting healthy inactive adults, aiming to change physical activity and/or sedentary behavior, with a minimum post-intervention follow-up of 6 months, using 16 databases from 1990. Two reviewers independently coded risk of bias, the TiDieR checklist, and BCTs. Results: Twenty-six studies were included; 16 pooled for meta-analysis. Physical activity interventions were effective at changing behavior (d = .32, 95% CI .16 to .48, n=2346) and maintaining behavior change after 6 months or more (d = .21, 95% CI .12 to .30, n=2190). Sedentary behavior interventions (n=2) were not effective. At post-intervention, physical activity intervention effectiveness was associated with the BCTs ‘Biofeedback’, ‘Demonstration of the behavior’, ‘Behavior practice/rehearsal’, and ‘Graded tasks’. At follow-up, effectiveness was associated with using ‘Action planning’, ‘Instruction on how to perform the behavior’, ‘Prompts/cues’, ‘Behavior practice/rehearsal’, ‘Graded tasks’, and ‘Self-reward’. Fidelity was only documented in one study. Conclusions: Good evidence was found for behavior change maintenance effects in healthy inactive adults, and underlying BCTs. This review provides translational evidence to improve research, intervention design, and service delivery in physical activity interventions, while highlighting the lack of fidelity measurement.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherSpringeren
dc.relation.urlhttps://academic.oup.com/tbm/advance-article/doi/10.1093/tbm/iby010/4913688
dc.rightsGreen - can archive pre-print and post-print or publisher's version/PDF
dc.subjectphysical activityen
dc.subjectsedentary behaviouren
dc.subjectdieten
dc.subjectC600 Sports Scienceen
dc.subjectinactive adultsen
dc.subjectbehaviour changeen
dc.titleAre physical activity interventions for healthy inactive adults effective in promoting behavior change and maintenance, and which behavior change techniques are effective? : a systematic review and meta-analysisen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Hertfordshireen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity College Londonen
dc.identifier.journalTranslational Behavioral Medicineen
dc.date.updated2018-02-19T10:32:56Z
dc.description.note12m embargo from publication date - publication date not known at time of recording
refterms.dateFOA2021-03-01T14:02:20Z
html.description.abstractBackground: Physical inactivity and sedentary behavior relate to poor health outcomes independently. Healthy inactive adults are a key target population for prevention. Purpose: This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of physical activity and/or sedentary behavior interventions, measured post-intervention (behavior change) and at follow-up (behavior change maintenance), to identify behavior change techniques (BCT) within, and report on fidelity. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, targeting healthy inactive adults, aiming to change physical activity and/or sedentary behavior, with a minimum post-intervention follow-up of 6 months, using 16 databases from 1990. Two reviewers independently coded risk of bias, the TiDieR checklist, and BCTs. Results: Twenty-six studies were included; 16 pooled for meta-analysis. Physical activity interventions were effective at changing behavior (d = .32, 95% CI .16 to .48, n=2346) and maintaining behavior change after 6 months or more (d = .21, 95% CI .12 to .30, n=2190). Sedentary behavior interventions (n=2) were not effective. At post-intervention, physical activity intervention effectiveness was associated with the BCTs ‘Biofeedback’, ‘Demonstration of the behavior’, ‘Behavior practice/rehearsal’, and ‘Graded tasks’. At follow-up, effectiveness was associated with using ‘Action planning’, ‘Instruction on how to perform the behavior’, ‘Prompts/cues’, ‘Behavior practice/rehearsal’, ‘Graded tasks’, and ‘Self-reward’. Fidelity was only documented in one study. Conclusions: Good evidence was found for behavior change maintenance effects in healthy inactive adults, and underlying BCTs. This review provides translational evidence to improve research, intervention design, and service delivery in physical activity interventions, while highlighting the lack of fidelity measurement.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
iby010.pdf
Size:
247.3Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Version of record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record