Department of Kinesiology, University of North Carolina Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.
School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia.
Br J Health Psychol. 2021 Sep;26(3):861-881. doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12509. Epub 2021 Jan 27.
This study used ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to empirically test the theoretical propositions that habit for and level of physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) should be associated with degree of context stability of those behaviours.
Older adults (N = 104) completed a 10-day EMA protocol and continuous accelerometer monitoring.
As part of the EMA protocol older adults answered 6 EMA prompts per day to assess current behaviour as well as social and physical contexts of behaviour. Temporal context was determined via time stamps of EMA questionnaires. Context stability was calculated as the reversed entropy scores of the contexts (physical, social, temporal, behavioural [i.e., type]) of PA and SB weighted for total frequency of context prompts. Habit for PA and SB (operationalized as self-reported behavioural automaticity) was assessed via baseline questionnaire. An ActivPAL monitor was worn to assess average daily time spent in moderate-vigorous PA (MVPA), light PA, and SB, and number of sit-to-stand transitions.
More stable physical contexts for physical activity predicted more MVPA (β = 10.22) and more stable social contexts for sitting predicted more SB (β = 1.36). More variety of time people tended to report engaging in SB, the more SB engaged in (β = -13.76). No context stability scores predicted light PA, sit-to-stand transitions, or habit.
Although context stability was related to behaviour, this did not appear to be explained by habit, as habit did not differ by the degree of context stability surrounding bouts of PA or SB.
本研究采用生态瞬时评估(EMA)实证检验理论假设,即体力活动(PA)和久坐行为(SB)的习惯和水平应与这些行为的环境稳定性程度相关。
104 名老年人完成了为期 10 天的 EMA 方案和连续加速度计监测。
作为 EMA 方案的一部分,老年人每天回答 6 次 EMA 提示,以评估当前行为以及行为的社会和物理环境。时间背景通过 EMA 问卷的时间戳确定。PA 和 SB 的上下文稳定性通过 PA 和 SB 的上下文(物理、社会、时间、行为[即类型])的倒数熵得分来计算,这些得分根据上下文提示的总频率进行加权。通过基线问卷评估 PA 和 SB 的习惯(操作化为自我报告的行为自动性)。佩戴 ActivPAL 监测器以评估每天中高强度 PA(MVPA)、轻度 PA 和 SB 的平均时间以及坐立转换次数。
PA 的物理环境更稳定,预示着 MVPA 更多(β=10.22),而坐着的社会环境更稳定,预示着 SB 更多(β=1.36)。人们报告从事 SB 的时间变化越多,从事的 SB 就越多(β=-13.76)。没有上下文稳定性评分预测轻度 PA、坐立转换次数或习惯。
尽管环境稳定性与行为有关,但这似乎并不是由习惯决定的,因为习惯在围绕 PA 或 SB 爆发的环境稳定性程度方面没有差异。