School of Kinesiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Center for Advanced Hindsight, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Transl Behav Med. 2024 Feb 7;14(2):106-116. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibad047.
The effects of adding choice architecture to a theory-based (Health Action Process Approach; HAPA) sedentary intervention remain unknown. To investigate whether choice architecture enhances a theory-based sedentary behaviour reduction intervention in home-based office workers. A 4-week HAPA-based intervention was conducted in London, Canada. Choice architecture was tested as an enhancement via a two (group: 'Choice of Intervention' vs. 'No Choice Intervention') by two (time: Baseline vs. Week 4) factorial repeated measure randomized comparison design. Sedentary behaviour reduction strategies focussed on obtaining a sedentary break frequency (BF) of every 30-45 min with break durations (BD) of 2-3 min. BF, BD, sitting, standing, and moving time were objectively measured (activPAL4™) at both time points. Participants (n = 148) were 44.9 ± 11.4 years old and 72.3% female. BF and total sitting time showed a time effect (P < .001), where both groups improved over the 4 weeks; there were no significant differences between groups across time. BD, standing, and moving time had a significant group by time effect where the 'No Choice' group showed significant increases in BD (P < .001), standing (P = .006), and moving time (P < .001) over the 4 weeks. Augmenting a theory-based intervention with choice architecture resulted in change in some sedentary behaviours in at home office workers. Specifically, while BF increased for all participants, the 'No Choice' group exhibited greater changes for BD, standing, and moving time compared with the 'Choice' group. Overall, these changes exceeded the intervention BF and BD goals.
将选择架构添加到基于理论的（健康行动过程方法；HAPA）久坐干预中会产生什么影响尚不清楚。研究目的是为了检验选择架构是否能增强基于理论的减少久坐行为的干预措施在居家办公人员中的效果。该研究在加拿大伦敦进行了一项为期 4 周的 HAPA 干预研究。选择架构通过一个两（组：“干预选择”与“无选择干预”）×两（时间：基线与第 4 周）析因重复测量随机比较设计进行测试，作为增强干预的手段。减少久坐行为的策略侧重于每 30-45 分钟获得一次久坐休息频率（BF），休息时间（BD）为 2-3 分钟。在这两个时间点，使用客观测量（activPAL4™）测量了 BF、BD、坐姿、站立和移动时间。参与者（n = 148）年龄为 44.9 ± 11.4 岁，女性占 72.3%。BF 和总坐姿时间显示出时间效应（P <.001），两组在 4 周内都有所改善；两组在整个时间内没有显著差异。BD、站立和移动时间的组间时间效应有显著差异，其中“无选择”组的 BD（P <.001）、站立（P =.006）和移动时间（P <.001）显著增加。在基于理论的干预中加入选择架构会导致在家办公人员的一些久坐行为发生变化。具体来说，虽然所有参与者的 BF 都有所增加，但“无选择”组的 BD、站立和移动时间的变化大于“选择”组。总体而言，这些变化超过了干预的 BF 和 BD 目标。
