Wroclaw Faculty of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Aleksandra Ostrowskiego 30b, 50505, Wroclaw, Poland.
Institute of Psychology, University of Wroclaw, Dawida 1, 50529, Wroclaw, Poland.
Soc Sci Med. 2021 Oct;287:114336. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114336. Epub 2021 Aug 21.
Although effects of individual planning interventions on physical activity (PA) are well established, less is known about the relationships between planning and sedentary behavior (SB).
This study evaluated the efficacy of individual planning, dyadic planning (i.e., joint planning, targeting the behavior of one person only: the target person), and collaborative planning (i.e., joint planning and joint behavioral performance) on sedentary behavior among dyads.
Dyads (N = 320 target persons and their partners, aged 18-90 years) were randomized into three PA planning conditions (individual, dyadic, or collaborative) or an active (education) control condition. Main outcomes, i.e., sedentary time, proportion of time spent in SB and light-intensity PA, proportion of time spent in SB and total PA were measured with GT3X-BT accelerometers at baseline, 1-week follow-up, and 36-week follow-up. Two-level models with measurement points nested in participants were fit, separately for target persons and partners.
Findings for target persons obtained at 1-week follow-up indicated that in the collaborative planning condition SB time significantly decreased, compared to the control condition (p = .013). There was an improvement in the proportion of time spent in SB and light-intensity PA (p = .019), and the proportion of time spent in SB and total PA (p = .018), indicating that SB time was displaced by PA. Effects of individual and dyadic planning were not significant, compared to the control condition. None of interventions had a significant effect on SB indices at 36-week follow-up. Regarding dyadic partners, there were no effects of planning interventions at 1-week follow-up or 36-week follow-up, compared to the control condition.
Collaborative planning may prompt a short-term reduction of SB time and result in a shift towards a healthier balance between SB time and PA time among target persons, who did not adhere to PA guidelines at baseline.
尽管个体计划干预对身体活动（PA）的影响已得到充分证实，但关于计划与久坐行为（SB）之间的关系知之甚少。
本研究评估了个体计划、对偶计划（即针对一个人的行为：目标人进行的联合计划）和协作计划（即联合计划和联合行为表现）对双体久坐行为的效果。
将双体（N=320 名目标人和他们的伴侣，年龄 18-90 岁）随机分为三种 PA 计划条件（个体、对偶或协作）或积极（教育）对照组。主要结局指标，即久坐时间、SB 和低强度 PA 时间比例、SB 和总 PA 时间比例，采用 GT3X-BT 加速度计在基线、1 周随访和 36 周随访时进行测量。使用分别针对目标人和伴侣的参与者嵌套的测量点的两水平模型进行拟合。
在 1 周随访时，目标人获得的结果表明，与对照组相比，协作计划条件下 SB 时间显著减少（p=0.013）。SB 和低强度 PA 时间比例（p=0.019）和 SB 和总 PA 时间比例（p=0.018）均有所改善，表明 SB 时间被 PA 取代。与对照组相比，个体和对偶计划的效果不显著。与对照组相比，干预措施在 36 周随访时对 SB 指数均无显著影响。关于双体伴侣，与对照组相比，计划干预在 1 周随访或 36 周随访时均无显著影响。
协作计划可能会在短期内减少 SB 时间，并导致基线时不符合 PA 指南的目标人 SB 时间和 PA 时间之间的更健康平衡发生转变。
