Promoting an active choice among physically inactive adults: a randomised web-based four-arm experiment

Lorraine L Landais, Olga C Damman, Judith G M Jelsma, Evert A L M Verhagen, Danielle R M Timmermans, Lorraine L Landais, Olga C Damman, Judith G M Jelsma, Evert A L M Verhagen, Danielle R M Timmermans

Abstract

Background: Promoting active (i.e., conscious, autonomous, informed, and value-congruent) choices may improve the effectiveness of physical activity interventions. This web-based four-arm experimental study investigated the effect of promoting an active versus passive choice regarding physical activity on behavioural and psychological outcomes (e.g., physical activity intentions and behaviours, autonomy, commitment) among physically inactive adults.

Methods: Dutch inactive adults were randomized into four groups: physical activity guideline only (control group G), guideline & information (GI), guideline & active choice (GA), or guideline & active choice & action planning (GA +). GA and GA + participants were stimulated to make an active choice by weighing advantages and disadvantages of physical activity, considering personal values, and identifying barriers. GA + participants additionally completed action/coping planning exercises. Passive choice groups G and GI did not receive exercises. Self-reported behavioural outcomes were assessed by a questionnaire pre-intervention (T0, n = 564) and at 2-4 weeks follow-up (T2, n = 493). Psychological outcomes were assessed post-intervention (T1, n = 564) and at follow-up. Regression analyses compared the outcomes of groups GI, GA and GA + with group G. We also conducted sensitivity analyses and a process evaluation.

Results: Although promoting an active choice process (i.e., interventions GA and GA +) did not improve intention (T1) or physical activity (T2 versus T0), GA + participants reported higher commitment at T1 (β = 0.44;95%CI:0.04;0.84) and more frequently perceived an increase in physical activity between T0 and T2 (β = 2.61;95%CI:1.44;7.72). GA participants also made a more active choice at T1 (β = 0.16;95%CI:0.04;0.27). The GA and GA + intervention did not significantly increase the remaining outcomes. GI participants reported higher intention strength (β = 0.64;95%CI:0.15;1.12), autonomy (β = 0.50;95%CI:0.05;0.95), and commitment (β = 0.39;95%CI:0.04;0.74), and made a more active choice at T1 (β = 0.13;95%CI:0.02;0.24). Interestingly, gender and health condition modified the effect on several outcomes. The GA + intervention was somewhat more effective in women. The process evaluation showed that participants varied in how they perceived the intervention.

Conclusions: There is no convincing evidence of a beneficial effect of an active versus passive choice intervention on physical activity intentions and behaviours among inactive adults. Further research should determine whether and how active choice interventions that are gender-sensitized and consider health conditions can effectively increase physical activity.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04973813 . Retrospectively registered.

Keywords: Active choice; Decision making; Inactive Adults; Intention; Physical activity; Process evaluation; Web-based intervention.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study design
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Participant flow diagram

References

    1. Howlett N, Trivedi D, Troop NA, Chater AM. Are physical activity interventions for healthy inactive adults effective in promoting behavior change and maintenance, and which behavior change techniques are effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Behav Med. 2019;9(1):147–157. doi: 10.1093/tbm/iby010.
    1. Johnson EJ, Shu SB, Dellaert BG, Fox C, Goldstein DG, Häubl G, et al. Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture. Market Lett. 2012;23(2):487–504. doi: 10.1007/s11002-012-9186-1.
    1. Thaler H, Sunstein CR. Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven & London: Yale University Press; 2008.
    1. Carroll GD, Choi JJ, Laibson D, Madrian BC, Metrick A. Optimal defaults and active decisions. Q J Econ. 2009;124(4):1639–1674. doi: 10.1162/qjec.2009.124.4.1639.
    1. Keller PA, Harlam B, Loewenstein G, Volpp KG. Enhanced active choice: A new method to motivate behavior change. J Consum Psychol. 2011;21(4):376–383. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2011.06.003.
    1. Sunstein CR. Forcing People to Choose Is Paternalistic. Mo L Rev. 2017;82:643.
    1. Evans JSB. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:255–278. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629.
    1. Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: Helping people change. New York: Guilford press; 2012.
    1. Anshel MH. The disconnected values model: Intervention strategies for exercise behavior change. J Clin Sport Psychol. 2008;2(4):357–380. doi: 10.1123/jcsp.2.4.357.
    1. Hayes SC, Luoma JB, Bond FW, Masuda A, Lillis J. Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behav Res Ther. 2006;44(1):1–25. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006.
    1. Gollwitzer PM, Sheeran P. Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 2006;38:69–119. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1.
    1. Anshel MH. The disconnected values (intervention) model for promoting healthy habits in religious institutions. J Rel Health. 2010;49(1):32–49. doi: 10.1007/s10943-008-9230-x.
    1. Festinger L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford university press; 1957.
    1. Sheeran P, Milne S, Webb TL, Gollwitzer PM. Implementation intentions and health behaviour. 2005.
    1. Nuss K, Moore K, Nelson T, Li K. Effects of motivational interviewing and wearable fitness trackers on motivation and physical activity: A systematic review. Am J Health Promot. 2021;35(2):226–235. doi: 10.1177/0890117120939030.
    1. Mahmoodabad SSM, Tonekaboni NR, Farmanbar R, Fallahzadeh H, Kamalikhah T. The effect of motivational interviewing-based intervention using self-determination theory on promotion of physical activity among women in reproductive age: a randomized clinical trial. Electron Physician. 2017;9(5):4461. doi: 10.19082/4461.
    1. O’Halloran PD, Blackstock F, Shields N, Holland A, Iles R, Kingsley M, et al. Motivational interviewing to increase physical activity in people with chronic health conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil. 2014;28(12):1159–1171. doi: 10.1177/0269215514536210.
    1. Pears S, Sutton S. Effectiveness of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) interventions for promoting physical activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychol Rev. 2021;15(1):159–84.
    1. Manchón J, Quiles M, Leon E, López-Roig S. Acceptance and commitment therapy on physical activity: a systematic review. J Contextual Behav Sci. 2020;17:135–43.
    1. Bélanger-Gravel A, Godin G, Amireault S. A meta-analytic review of the effect of implementation intentions on physical activity. Health Psychol Rev. 2013;7(1):23–54. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2011.560095.
    1. Anshel MH, Brinthaupt TM, Kang M. The disconnected values model improves mental well-being and fitness in an employee wellness program. Behav Med. 2010;36(4):113–122. doi: 10.1080/08964289.2010.489080.
    1. Anshel MH, Kang M. An outcome-based action study on changes in fitness, blood lipids, and exercise adherence, using the disconnected values (intervention) model. Behav Med. 2007;33(3):85–100. doi: 10.3200/BMED.33.3.85-100.
    1. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2020;61:101860. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860.
    1. Deci EL, Ryan RM. The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq. 2000;11(4):227–268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.
    1. Sweet SN, Fortier MS, Strachan SM, Blanchard CM. Testing and integrating self-determination theory and self-efficacy theory in a physical activity context. Can Psychol. 2012;53(4):319. doi: 10.1037/a0030280.
    1. Zuckerman M, Porac J, Lathin D, Deci EL. On the importance of self-determination for intrinsically-motivated behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1978;4(3):443–446. doi: 10.1177/014616727800400317.
    1. Bekker H, Thornton J, Airey C, Connelly J, Hewison J, Robinson M, et al. Informed decision making: an annotated bibliography and systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(1):1–156. doi: 10.3310/hta3010.
    1. Briss P, Rimer B, Reilley B, Coates RC, Lee NC, Mullen P, et al. Promoting informed decisions about cancer screening in communities and healthcare systems. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26(1):67–80. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2003.09.012.
    1. Timmermans D. Wat beweegt de kiezer? Over de betekenis van weloverwogen en geïnformeerde keuzes voor gezondheid en preventie [What drives a decision-maker? About the significance of informed choices for health and prevention] The Netherlands: VU Medisch Centrum; 2013.
    1. Cioffi D, Garner R. On doing the decision: Effects of active versus passive choice on commitment and self-perception. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1996;22(2):133–147. doi: 10.1177/0146167296222003.
    1. Brinthaupt TM, Kang M, Anshel MH. Changes in Exercise Commitment Following a Values-Based Wellness Program. J Sport Behav. 2013;36(1):3.
    1. Segar M, Taber JM, Patrick H, Thai CL, Oh A. Rethinking physical activity communication: using focus groups to understand women’s goals, values, and beliefs to improve public health. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):1–13. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4361-1.
    1. Landais LL, Jelsma JG, Dotinga IR, Timmermans DR, Verhagen EA, Damman OC. Office workers' perspectives on physical activity and sedentary behaviour: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1–10.
    1. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017(4):CD001431. 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5.
    1. Miller WR, Rose GS. Motivational interviewing and decisional balance: contrasting responses to client ambivalence. Behav Cogn Psychother. 2015;43(2):129–141. doi: 10.1017/S1352465813000878.
    1. Williams SL, French DP. What are the most effective intervention techniques for changing physical activity self-efficacy and physical activity behaviour—and are they the same? Health Educ Res. 2011;26(2):308–322. doi: 10.1093/her/cyr005.
    1. Michie S, Ashford S, Sniehotta FF, Dombrowski SU, Bishop A, French DP. A refined taxonomy of behaviour change techniques to help people change their physical activity and healthy eating behaviours: the CALO-RE taxonomy. Psychol Health. 2011;26(11):1479–1498. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2010.540664.
    1. Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis J, Hardeman W, et al. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2013;46(1):81–95. doi: 10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6.
    1. Janis IL, Mann L. Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free press; 1977.
    1. Cerin E, Cain KL, Oyeyemi AL, Owen N, Conway TL, Cochrane T, et al. Correlates of agreement between accelerometry and self-reported physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016;48(6):1075. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000870.
    1. Scottish Physical Activity Screening Question (Scot-PASQ). NHS Health Scotland; 2013. :
    1. Guidelines for data processing and analysis of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) - Short and long forms: IPAQ Research Committee; 2005. [Available from: . (accessed 17 May 2021)
    1. Landais LL, Jelsma JG, Dotinga IR, Timmermans DR, Verhagen EA, Damman OC. Office Workers' Perspectives on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour: A Qualitative Study. 2021.
    1. Gezondheidsraad. Beweegrichtlijnen 2017. Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad, 2017. Contract No.: publicatienr. 2017/08.
    1. French DP, Miles LM, Elbourne D, Farmer A, Gulliford M, Locock L, et al. Reducing bias in trials due to reactions to measurement: experts produced recommendations informed by evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;139:130–139. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.028.
    1. International physical activity questionnaire 2012. [Available from: . (accessed 17 May 2021).
    1. van Poppel MNM, Chin A Paw MJM, van Mechelen W. Reproduceerbaarheid en validiteit van de Nederlandse versie van de International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen (TSG) 2004;82(7):457–62.
    1. Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjöström M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(8):1381–1395. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000078924.61453.FB.
    1. O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 1995;15(1):25–30.
    1. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258. 10.1136/bmj.h1258.
    1. Stone-Romero EF, Liakhovitski D. Strategies for detecting moderator variables: A review of conceptual and empirical issues. Res Pers Hum Resour Manag. 2002;21:333–72.
    1. Castleberry A, Nolen A. Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds? Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2018;10(6):807–815. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2018.03.019.
    1. Ziegelmann JP, Lippke S, Schwarzer R. Adoption and maintenance of physical activity: Planning interventions in young, middle-aged, and older adults. Psychol Health. 2006;21(2):145–163. doi: 10.1080/1476832050018891.
    1. Vandelanotte C, Spathonis KM, Eakin EG, Owen N. Website-delivered physical activity interventions: A review of the literature. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33(1):54–64. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.02.041.
    1. Davies CA, Spence JC, Vandelanotte C, Caperchione CM, Mummery WK. Meta-analysis of internet-delivered interventions to increase physical activity levels. Int J Behav Nutr. 2012;9(1):1–13. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-1.
    1. Peters E, Dieckmann N, Dixon A, Hibbard JH, Mertz C. Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med Care Res Rev. 2007;64(2):169–190. doi: 10.1177/10775587070640020301.
    1. Lustria MLA, Noar SM, Cortese J, Van Stee SK, Glueckauf RL, Lee J. A meta-analysis of web-delivered tailored health behavior change interventions. J Health Commun. 2013;18(9):1039–1069. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2013.768727.
    1. Kreuter MW, Wray RJ. Tailored and targeted health communication: strategies for enhancing information relevance. Am J Health Behav. 2003;27(1):S227–S232. doi: 10.5993/AJHB.27.1.s3.6.
    1. Myers RE, Sifri R, Hyslop T, Rosenthal M, Vernon SW, Cocroft J, et al. A randomized controlled trial of the impact of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening. Cancer. 2007;110(9):2083–2091. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23022.
    1. Bunn C, Wyke S, Gray CM, Maclean A, Hunt K. ‘Coz football is what we all have’: masculinities, practice, performance and effervescence in a gender-sensitised weight-loss and healthy living programme for men. Sociol Health Illn. 2016;38(5):812–828. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.12402.
    1. Wyke S, Bunn C, Andersen E, Silva MN, Van Nassau F, McSkimming P, et al. The effect of a programme to improve men’s sedentary time and physical activity: The European Fans in Training (EuroFIT) randomised controlled trial. PLoS medicine. 2019;16(2):e1002736. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002736.
    1. Bonsaksen T, Lerdal A, Fagermoen MS. Factors associated with self-efficacy in persons with chronic illness. Scand J Psychol. 2012;53(4):333–339. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2012.00959.x.
    1. Curtin RB, Walters BA, Schatell D, Pennell P, Wise M, Klicko K. Self-efficacy and self-management behaviors in patients with chronic kidney disease. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2008;15(2):191–205. doi: 10.1053/j.ackd.2008.01.006.
    1. Robinson SA, Zocchi MS, Netherton D, Ash A, Purington CM, Connolly SL, et al. Secure messaging, diabetes self-management, and the importance of patient autonomy: a mixed methods study. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35:2955–2962. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-05834-x.
    1. Salmond SS. Randomized controlled trials: methodological concepts and critique. Orthop Nurs. 2008;27(2):116–122. doi: 10.1097/01.NOR.0000315626.44137.94.
    1. Nielsen K, Fredslund H, Christensen KB, Albertsen K. Success or failure? Interpreting and understanding the impact of interventions in four similar worksites. Work Stress. 2006;20(3):272–287. doi: 10.1080/02678370601022688.
    1. Herzog MH, Francis G, Clarke A. The Multiple Testing Problem. Understanding Statistics and Experimental Design: Springer; 2019. pp. 63–66.
    1. Dyrstad SM, Hansen BH, Holme IM, Anderssen SA. Comparison of self-reported versus accelerometer-measured physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46(1):99–106. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182a0595f.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe