The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden.
Division of Insurance medicine, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
BMC Public Health. 2021 Jun 2;21(1):1048. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11083-2.
The importance of physical activity on health is clear, but changing behaviour is difficult. Successful interventions aiming to improve physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour is therefore of importance. The aim of this study was to evaluate effects on motivation, self-efficacy and barriers to change behaviour from two different behavioural intervention focusing either on reducing sedentary behaviour or on increasing physical activity as compared to a waiting list control group.
The study was designed as a cluster randomized control trial (RCT) within two private companies. Self-efficacy, motivation and perceived barriers were together with demographic variables assessed before and after a 6-month intervention. Participant cluster teams were randomly allocated to either the physical activity intervention (iPA), the sedentary behaviour intervention (iSED), or control group. The intervention was multi componential and included motivational counselling based on Cognitive behaviour therapy and Motivational interviewing, group activities and management involvement. Group differences were determined using Bayesian multilevel modelling (parameter estimate; credible interval (CI)), analysing complete cases and those who adhered to the protocol by adhering to at least 3 out of 5 intervention sessions.
After the intervention, the complete cases analysis showed that the iPA group had significantly higher autonomous motivation (0.33, CI: 0.05-0.61) and controlled motivation (0.27, CI: 0.04-0.51) for physical activity compared with the control group. The iSED group scored less autonomous and controlled motivation compared to the iPA group (0.38, CI: - 0.69- -0.087 respectively - 0.32, CI: - 0.57-0.07) but no significant differences compared with the control group. Among individuals that adhered to the protocol, the results showed higher scores on Exercise (3.03, CI: 0.28-6.02) and Sedentary self-efficacy (3.59, CI: 0.35-7.15) for individuals in the iPA group and on Sedentary self-efficacy (4.77, CI: 0.59-9.44) for the iSED group compared to the control group.
These findings indicate that the interventions were successful in increasing self-efficacy in each intervention group and autonomous motivation for exercise in the iPA group, in particular when actively participating in the motivational counselling sessions.
体力活动对健康的重要性是显而易见的，但改变行为是困难的。因此，成功的干预措施旨在提高体力活动和减少久坐行为是很重要的。本研究的目的是评估两种不同的行为干预措施对动机、自我效能感和改变行为障碍的影响，这两种干预措施分别侧重于减少久坐行为或增加体力活动，与等待名单对照组相比。
该研究设计为两家私营公司内的集群随机对照试验（RCT）。在 6 个月的干预前后，评估自我效能感、动机和感知障碍以及人口统计学变量。参与者集群团队被随机分配到体力活动干预组（iPA）、久坐行为干预组（iSED）或对照组。干预是多组分的，包括基于认知行为疗法和动机访谈的动机咨询、小组活动和管理层参与。使用贝叶斯多层次建模（参数估计；可信区间（CI））分析组间差异，分析完整案例和遵守协议的案例，即至少参加 5 次干预课程中的 3 次。
干预后，完整案例分析显示，与对照组相比，iPA 组的体力活动自主性动机（0.33，CI：0.05-0.61）和控制性动机（0.27，CI：0.04-0.51）显著更高。与 iPA 组相比，iSED 组的自主性和控制性动机得分较低（分别为-0.38，CI：-0.69- -0.087 和-0.32，CI：-0.57-0.07），但与对照组无显著差异。对于遵守协议的个体，结果显示 iPA 组的运动（3.03，CI：0.28-6.02）和久坐自我效能感（3.59，CI：0.35-7.15）得分较高，而 iSED 组的久坐自我效能感（4.77，CI：0.59-9.44）得分较高与对照组相比。
这些发现表明，干预措施成功地提高了每个干预组的自我效能感和 iPA 组的运动自主性动机，特别是在积极参加动机咨询课程时。
