scholarly journals PARIS: protocol for a prospective single arm, theory-based, group-based feasibility intervention study to increase Physical Activity and reduce sedentary behaviouR after barIatric Surgery

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e051638
Author(s):  
Jennifer James ◽  
Wendy Hardeman ◽  
Helen Eborall ◽  
Mark Goodall ◽  
John Wilding
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Bariatric Surgery ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Feasibility Study ◽  
Theoretical Domains Framework ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Service Research ◽  
Behaviour Change Techniques ◽  
Behaviour Change Intervention

IntroductionIncreased physical activity and reduced sedentary behaviour can encourage favourable outcomes after bariatric surgery. However, there is a lack of evidence as to how to support patients with behaviour change. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of a physiotherapist led, online group-based behaviour change intervention to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour following bariatric surgery.Methods and analysisSingle arm feasibility study of a theory and evidence-based group behaviour change intervention based on the Behaviour Change Wheel and Theoretical Domains Framework using behaviour change techniques from the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy v1. The intervention has eight objectives and specifies behaviour change techniques that will be used to address each of these. Groups of up to eight participants who have had surgery within the previous 5 years will meet weekly over 6 weeks for up to 1½ hours. Groups will be held online led by a physiotherapist and supported by an intervention handbook. Feasibility study outcomes include: rate of recruitment, retention, intervention fidelity, participant engagement and acceptability. Secondary outcomes include: physical activity, sedentary behaviour, body composition, self-reported health status and will be analysed descriptively. Change in these outcomes will be used to calculate the sample size for a future evaluation study. Qualitative interviews will explore participants’ views of the intervention including its acceptability. Data will be analysed according to the constant comparative approach of grounded theory.Ethics and disseminationThis study has National Health Service Research Ethics Committee approval; Haydock 20/NW/0472. All participants will provide informed consent and can withdraw at any point. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference and clinical service presentations.Trial registration numberISRCTN31524689.

scholarly journals Improving implementation of smoking cessation guidelines in pregnancy care: development of an intervention to address system, maternity service leader and clinician factors

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan E. Passey ◽  
Catherine Adams ◽  
Christine Paul ◽  
Lou Atkins ◽  
Jo M. Longman
Keyword(s):  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Feasibility Study ◽  
Complex Interventions ◽  
Theoretical Domains Framework ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Advisory Group ◽  
Behaviour Change Techniques ◽  
Smoking During Pregnancy ◽  
Maternity Services

Abstract Background Smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of multiple serious adverse infant, child and maternal outcomes, yet nearly 10% of Australian women still smoke during pregnancy. Despite evidence-based guidelines that recommend routine and repeated smoking cessation support (SCS) for all pregnant women, the provision of recommended SCS remains poor. Guidance on developing complex interventions to improve health care recommends drawing on existing theories, reviewing evidence, undertaking primary data collection, attending to future real-world implementation and designing and refining interventions using iterative cycles with stakeholder input throughout. Here, we describe using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) and the Theoretical Domains Framework to apply these principles in developing an intervention to improve the provision of SCS in Australian maternity services. Methods Working closely with key stakeholders in the New South Wales (NSW) health system, we applied the steps of the BCW method then undertook a small feasibility study in one service to further refine the intervention. Stakeholders were engaged in multiple ways—as a core research team member, through a project Advisory Group, targeted meetings with policymakers, a large workshop to review potential components and the feasibility study. Results Barriers to and enablers of providing SCS were identified in five of six components described in the BCW method (psychological capability, physical opportunity, social opportunity and reflective and automatic motivation). These were mapped to intervention types and we selected education, training, enablement, environmental restructuring, persuasion, incentivisation and modelling as suitable in our context. Through application of the APEASE criteria (Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness, Acceptability, Side effects and Equity) in the stakeholder workshop, behaviour change techniques were selected and applied in developing the intervention which includes systems, clinician and leadership elements. The feasibility study confirmed the feasibility and acceptability of the midwifery component and the need to further strengthen the leadership component. Conclusions Using the BCW method combined with strong stakeholder engagement from inception resulted in transparent development of the MOHMQuit intervention, which targets identified barriers to and enablers of the provision of SCS and is developed specifically for the context in which it will be implemented. The intervention is being trialled in eight public maternity services in NSW.

scholarly journals Which behaviour change techniques are effective to promote physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour in adults: a factorial randomized trial of an e- and m-health intervention

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helene Schroé ◽  
Delfien Van Dyck ◽  
Annick De Paepe ◽  
Louise Poppe ◽  
Wen Wei Loh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Action Planning ◽  
Health Intervention ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Behaviour Change Techniques ◽  
Self Monitoring ◽  
Coping Planning ◽  
The Impact

Abstract BackgroundE- and m-health interventions are promising to change health behaviour. Many of these interventions use a large variety of behaviour change techniques (BCTs), but it’s not known which BCTs or which combination of BCTs contribute to their efficacy. Therefore, this study investigated the efficacy of three BCTs (i.e. action planning, coping planning and self-monitoring) and their combinations on physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB).MethodsIn a 2(action planning: present vs absent) x2(coping planning: present vs absent) x2(self-monitoring: present vs absent) factorial trial, 473 adults from the general population used the self-regulation based e- and m-health intervention ‘MyPlan2.0’ for five weeks. All combinations of BCTs were considered, resulting in eight groups. Participants selected their preferred target behaviour, either PA (n = 335,age = 35.8,28.1% men) or SB (n = 138,age = 37.8,37.7% men), and were then randomly allocated to the experimental groups. Levels of PA (MVPA in minutes/week) or SB (total sedentary time in hours/day) were assessed at baseline and post-intervention using self-reported questionnaires. Linear mixed-effect models were fitted to assess the impact of the different combinations of the BCTs on PA and SB.ResultsFirst, overall efficacy of each BCT was examined. The delivery of self-monitoring increased PA (t = 2.735,p = 0.007) and reduced SB (t=-2.573,p = 0.012) compared with no delivery of self-monitoring. Also, the delivery of coping planning increased PA (t = 2.302,p = 0.022) compared with no delivery of coping planning. Second, we investigated to what extent adding BCTs increased efficacy. Using the combination of the three BCTs was most effective to increase PA (x2 = 8,849,p = 0.003) whereas the combination of action planning and self-monitoring was most effective to decrease SB (x2 = 3.918,p = 0.048). To increase PA, action planning was always more effective in combination with coping planning (x2 = 5.590,p = 0.014;x2 = 17.722,p < 0.001;x2 = 4.552,p = 0.033) compared with using action planning without coping planning. Of note, the use of action planning alone reduced PA compared with using coping planning alone (x2 = 4.389,p = 0.031) and self-monitoring alone (x2 = 8.858,p = 003), respectively.ConclusionsThis study provides indications that different (combinations of) BCTs may be effective to promote PA and reduce SB. More experimental research to investigate the effectiveness of BCTs is needed, which can contribute to improved design and more effective e- and m-health interventions in the future.Trial registrationThis study was preregistered as a clinical trial (ID number: NCT03274271). Release date: 20 October 2017, http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03274271

scholarly journals Using Intervention Mapping to Develop and Facilitate Implementation of a Multifaceted Behavioural Intervention Targeting Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour in Stroke Survivors: Physical Activity Routines After Stroke (PARAS)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Moore ◽  
Darren Flynn ◽  
Christopher Price ◽  
Leah Avery
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Stroke Rehabilitation ◽  
Intervention Mapping ◽  
Behavioural Intervention ◽  
Behaviour Change Techniques ◽  
Stroke Survivors ◽  
Face To Face

Abstract BackgroundThe benefits of increased physical activity for stroke survivors include improved walking ability, balance and mood. However, less than 30% achieve recommended levels of physical activity, and high levels of sedentary behaviour are reported. We engaged stroke survivors, informal carers and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in a co-design process to develop an evidence-informed behavioural intervention targeting physical activity and sedentary behaviour for use by stroke rehabilitation teams. MethodsIntervention Mapping was used as a framework for intervention development. Step 1 involved a systematic review, focus group discussions and a review of existing care pathways. Step 2 involved identification of social cognitive determinants of behavioural change and behavioural outcomes of the intervention. Step 3 involved linking the determinants of behavioural outcomes with specific behaviour change techniques to target the behaviours of interest. Step 4 involved the development of the intervention informed by steps 1 to 3. Subsequently, an implementation plan was developed (Step 5) followed by an evaluation plan (Step 6). ResultsSystematic review findings informed selection of nine ‘promising’ behaviour change techniques (e.g. goal setting-behaviour; problem-solving). Focus groups with stroke survivors (n=18) and HCPs (n=24) identified the need for an intervention that could be delivered at different time points within the rehabilitation pathway, tailored to individual needs and circumstances with training for HCPs delivering the intervention. Intervention delivery was considered feasible within local community stroke services. The target behaviours for the intervention were physical activity and sedentary behaviour of stroke survivors. Assessment of acceptability and usability with 11 HCPs and 21 stroke survivors/relatives identified issues around self-monitoring tools; the need for a repository of local services for physical activity; and the need for face-to-face feedback provision to HCPs following delivery of the intervention for optimisation purposes. Face-to-face training for HCPs was delivered to support faithful delivery of the intervention within community settings. A feasibility study protocol was designed to evaluate the intervention.ConclusionsA systematic development process using intervention mapping resulted in a multi-faceted evidence- and theory-informed intervention (Physical Activity Routines After Stroke - PARAS) for delivery by community stroke rehabilitation teams. Trial registration: Trial identifier: ISRCTN35516780, date of registration: 24/10/2018, URL http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN35516780

scholarly journals Which behaviour change techniques are effective to promote physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour in adults: a factorial randomized trial of an e- and m-health intervention

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helene Schroé ◽  
Delfien Van Dyck ◽  
Annick De Paepe ◽  
Louise Poppe ◽  
Wen Wei Loh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Action Planning ◽  
Health Intervention ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Behaviour Change Techniques ◽  
Self Monitoring ◽  
Coping Planning ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background E- and m-health interventions are promising to change health behaviour. Many of these interventions use a large variety of behaviour change techniques (BCTs), but it’s not known which BCTs or which combination of BCTs contribute to their efficacy. Therefore, this experimental study investigated the efficacy of three BCTs (i.e. action planning, coping planning and self-monitoring) and their combinations on physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) against a background set of other BCTs.Methods In a 2 (action planning: present vs absent) x2 (coping planning: present vs absent) x2 (self-monitoring: present vs absent) factorial trial, 473 adults from the general population used the self-regulation based e- and m-health intervention ‘MyPlan2.0’ for five weeks. All combinations of BCTs were considered, resulting in eight groups. Participants selected their preferred target behaviour, either PA (n=335,age=35.8,28.1% men) or SB (n=138,age=37.8,37.7% men), and were then randomly allocated to the experimental groups. Levels of PA (MVPA in minutes/week) or SB (total sedentary time in hours/day) were assessed at baseline and post-intervention using self-reported questionnaires. Linear mixed-effect models were fitted to assess the impact of the different combinations of the BCTs on PA and SB. Results First, overall efficacy of each BCT was examined. The delivery of self-monitoring increased PA (t=2.735,p=0.007) and reduced SB (t=-2.573,p=0.012) compared with no delivery of self-monitoring. Also, the delivery of coping planning increased PA (t=2.302,p=0.022) compared with no delivery of coping planning. Second, we investigated to what extent adding BCTs increased efficacy. Using the combination of the three BCTs was most effective to increase PA (x2=8,849,p=0.003) whereas the combination of action planning and self-monitoring was most effective to decrease SB (x2=3.918,p=0.048). To increase PA, action planning was always more effective in combination with coping planning (x2=5.590,p=0.014;x2=17.722,p<0.001;x2=4.552,p=0.033) compared with using action planning without coping planning. Of note, the use of action planning alone reduced PA compared with using coping planning alone (x2=4.389,p=0.031) and self-monitoring alone (x2=8.858,p=003), respectively.Conclusions This study provides indications that different (combinations of) BCTs may be effective to promote PA and reduce SB. More experimental research to investigate the effectiveness of BCTs is needed, which can contribute to improved design and more effective e- and m-health interventions in the future.Trial registration This study was preregistered as a clinical trial (ID number: NCT03274271). Release date: 20 October 2017, http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03274271

scholarly journals Which behaviour change techniques are effective to promote physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour in adults: a factorial randomized trial of an e- and m-health intervention

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Helene Schroé ◽  
Delfien Van Dyck ◽  
Annick De Paepe ◽  
Louise Poppe ◽  
Wen Wei Loh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Action Planning ◽  
Health Intervention ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Behaviour Change Techniques ◽  
Self Monitoring ◽  
Coping Planning ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background E- and m-health interventions are promising to change health behaviour. Many of these interventions use a large variety of behaviour change techniques (BCTs), but it’s not known which BCTs or which combination of BCTs contribute to their efficacy. Therefore, this experimental study investigated the efficacy of three BCTs (i.e. action planning, coping planning and self-monitoring) and their combinations on physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) against a background set of other BCTs. Methods In a 2 (action planning: present vs absent) × 2 (coping planning: present vs absent) × 2 (self-monitoring: present vs absent) factorial trial, 473 adults from the general population used the self-regulation based e- and m-health intervention ‘MyPlan2.0’ for five weeks. All combinations of BCTs were considered, resulting in eight groups. Participants selected their preferred target behaviour, either PA (n = 335, age = 35.8, 28.1% men) or SB (n = 138, age = 37.8, 37.7% men), and were then randomly allocated to the experimental groups. Levels of PA (MVPA in minutes/week) or SB (total sedentary time in hours/day) were assessed at baseline and post-intervention using self-reported questionnaires. Linear mixed-effect models were fitted to assess the impact of the different combinations of the BCTs on PA and SB. Results First, overall efficacy of each BCT was examined. The delivery of self-monitoring increased PA (t = 2.735, p = 0.007) and reduced SB (t = − 2.573, p = 0.012) compared with no delivery of self-monitoring. Also, the delivery of coping planning increased PA (t = 2.302, p = 0.022) compared with no delivery of coping planning. Second, we investigated to what extent adding BCTs increased efficacy. Using the combination of the three BCTs was most effective to increase PA (x2 = 8849, p = 0.003) whereas the combination of action planning and self-monitoring was most effective to decrease SB (x2 = 3.918, p = 0.048). To increase PA, action planning was always more effective in combination with coping planning (x2 = 5.590, p = 0.014; x2 = 17.722, p < 0.001; x2 = 4.552, p = 0.033) compared with using action planning without coping planning. Of note, the use of action planning alone reduced PA compared with using coping planning alone (x2 = 4.389, p = 0.031) and self-monitoring alone (x2 = 8.858, p = 003), respectively. Conclusions This study provides indications that different (combinations of) BCTs may be effective to promote PA and reduce SB. More experimental research to investigate the effectiveness of BCTs is needed, which can contribute to improved design and more effective e- and m-health interventions in the future. Trial registration This study was preregistered as a clinical trial (ID number: NCT03274271). Release date: 20 October 2017.

scholarly journals Safety, feasibility, acceptability and effects of a behaviour-change intervention to change physical activity behaviour among people with multiple sclerosis: Results from the iStep-MS randomised controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (14) ◽  
pp. 1907-1918 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer M Ryan ◽  
Jennifer Fortune ◽  
Andrea Stennett ◽  
Cherry Kilbride ◽  
Grace Lavelle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Physical Activity Behaviour ◽  
Limited Information ◽  
Behaviour Change Intervention ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background: There is limited information regarding the safety, feasibility and acceptability of behaviour-change interventions to increase physical activity (PA) and reduce sedentary behaviour among people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Prior to evaluating efficacy, it is important to identify problems with feasibility and acceptability, which may undermine effectiveness. Objective: To examine the safety, feasibility and acceptability of a behaviour-change intervention to increase PA and reduce sedentary behaviour among people with MS. Methods: Sixty people received a 3-month intervention or usual care. Fatigue, pain and adverse events (AEs) were assessed. Feasibility and acceptability were explored through focus groups with physiotherapists and interviews with participants. Fidelity to intervention content, delivery skills, programme receipt and programme task were assessed. Results: There was no difference in AE rate between groups ( p = 0.965). Fatigue and pain were not higher in the intervention group at 3 or 9 months. Therapists reported the intervention was feasible to deliver and fidelity was acceptable. Twenty-nine participants (97%) attended at least 75% of sessions. Participants found the intervention acceptable but suggested some amendments were required to intervention components. Conclusions: The intervention was safe, feasible and acceptable. Although modifications are required to intervention components, the intervention warrants further evaluation in a future trial.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document