Effectiveness of the fun for wellness online behavioral intervention to promote well-being and physical activity: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Nicholas D Myers, Isaac Prilleltensky, Seungmin Lee, Samantha Dietz, Ora Prilleltensky, Adam McMahon, Karin A Pfeiffer, Morgan E Ellithorpe, Ahnalee M Brincks, Nicholas D Myers, Isaac Prilleltensky, Seungmin Lee, Samantha Dietz, Ora Prilleltensky, Adam McMahon, Karin A Pfeiffer, Morgan E Ellithorpe, Ahnalee M Brincks

Abstract

Background: Fun For Wellness (FFW) is an online behavioral intervention developed to encourage growth in well-being by providing capability-enhancing learning opportunities to participants. Self-efficacy theory guides the conceptual model underlying the FFW intervention. Some initial evidence has been provided for the efficacy of FFW to promote: well-being self-efficacy; interpersonal, community, psychological and economic subjective well-being; and, interpersonal and physical well-being actions. The purpose of this paper is to describe the protocol for a new randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to provide the first investigation of the effectiveness of FFW to increase well-being and physical activity in adults with obesity in the United States of America.

Methods: The study design is a large-scale, prospective, parallel group RCT. Approximately 9 hundred participants will be randomly assigned to the FFW or Usual Care (UC) group to achieve a 1:1 group (i.e.

, ffw: UC) assignment. Participants will be recruited through an online panel recruitment company. Data collection, including determination of eligibility, will be conducted online and enrollment is scheduled to begin on 8 August 2018. Data collection will occur at baseline, 30 days and 60 days after baseline. Instruments to measure demographic information, anthropometric characteristics, self-efficacy, physical activity and well-being will be included in the battery. Data will be modeled under an intent to treat approach and/or a complier average causal effect approach depending on the level of observed engagement with the intervention.

Discussion: The effectiveness trial described in this paper builds upon the 2015 FFW efficacy trial and has the potential to be important for at least three reasons. The first reason is based upon a general scientific approach that the potential utility of interventions should be evaluated under both ideal (e.g., more controlled) and real-world (e.g., less controlled) conditions. The second reason is based upon the global need for readily scalable online behavioral interventions that effectively promote physical activity in adults. The third reason is based upon the troubling global trend toward obesity along with evidence for obesity as a risk factor for several major non-communicable diseases.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03194854 , registered 21 June 2017.

Keywords: E-health; M-health; Self-efficacy theory.

Conflict of interest statement

Two co-authors, Adam McMahon and Isaac Prilleltensky, are partners in Wellnuts LLC. Wellnuts LLC may commercialize the FFW intervention in the future.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The conceptual model that guided the 2015 Fun For Wellness efficacy trial [1]
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The conceptual model that will guide the for the Fun For Wellness effectiveness trial

References

    1. Myers ND, Prilleltensky I, Prilleltensky O, McMahon A, Dietz S, Rubenstein CL. Efficacy of the fun for wellness online intervention to promote multidimensional well-being: a randomized controlled trial. Prev Sci. 2017;18:984–994. doi: 10.1007/s11121-017-0779-z.
    1. World Health Organization . obesity and overweight fact sheet. 2017.
    1. United States Department of Health and Human Services . managing overweight and obesity in adults: systematic evidence review from the obesity expert panel. 2013.
    1. Tudor-Locke C, Brashear MM, Johnson WD, Katzmarzyk PT. Accelerometer profiles of physical activity and inactivity in normal weight, overweight, and obese U.S. men and women. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7:60. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-7-60.
    1. Gourlan MJ, Trouilloud DO, Sarrazin PG. Interventions promoting physical activity among obese populations: a meta-analysis considering global effect, long-term maintenance, physical activity indicators and dose characteristics. Obes Rev. 2011;12:e633–e645. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00874.x.
    1. Kohl HW, Craig CL, Lambert EV, Inoue S, Alkandari JR, Leetongin G, Kahlmeier S. The pandemic of physical inactivity: global action for public health. Lancet. 2012;380:294–305. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60898-8.
    1. Sallis JF, Bull F, Guthold R, Heath GW, Inoue S, Kelly P, et al. Progress in physical activity over the Olympic quadrennium. Lancet. 2016;388:1325–1336. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30581-5.
    1. Heath GW, Parra DC, Sarmiento OL, Anderson LB, Owen N, Goenka S, et al. Evidence-based intervention in physical activity: lessons from around the world. Lancet. 2012;380:272–281. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60816-2.
    1. Reis RS, Salvo D, Ogilvie D, Lambert EV, Goenka S, Brownson RC. Scaling up physical activity interventions worldwide: stepping up to larger and smarter approaches to get people moving. Lancet. 2016;388:1337–1348. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30728-0.
    1. Bauman AE, Reis RS, Sallis JF, Wells JC, Loos RJF, Martin BW. Correlates of physical activity: why are some people physically active and others not? Lancet. 2012;380:258–271. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60735-1.
    1. Williams SL, French DP. What are the most effective intervention techniques for changing physical activity self-efficacy and physical activity behavior – and are they the same? Health Educ Res. 2011;26:308–322. doi: 10.1093/her/cyr005.
    1. Vandelonotte C, Spathonis KM, Eakin EG, Owen N. Website-delivered physical activity interventions: a review of the literature. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33:54–64. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.02.041.
    1. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman; 1997.
    1. Bandura A. Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:1–26. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.
    1. Feltz DL, Short SE, Sullivan PJ. Self-efficacy in sport. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2008.
    1. Watson DL, Tharp RG. Self-directed behavior: self-modification for personal adjustment. 10. Belmont: Cengage Learning; 2014.
    1. Seligman M. Flourish: a visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. New York: Simon & Schuster; 2011.
    1. Hays PA. Creating well-being: four steps to a happier, healthier life. Washington DC: American Psychological Association; 2014.
    1. Gander F, Proyer RT, Ruch W, Wyss T. Strength-based positive interventions: further evidence for their potential in enhancing well-being and alleviating depression. J Happiness Stud. 2013;14:1241–1259. doi: 10.1007/s10902-012-9380-0.
    1. Dolan P. Happiness by design. New York: Penguin; 2014.
    1. Brown KW, Ryan RM. The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84:822–848. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822.
    1. Norcross JC. Changeology: 5 steps to realizing your goals and resolutions. New York: Simon & Schuster; 2012.
    1. Myers ND, Park SE, Ahn S, Lee S, Sullivan PJ, Feltz DL. Proposed sources of coaching efficacy: a meta-analysis. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2017;39:261–279. doi: 10.1123/jsep.2017-0155.
    1. Myers ND, Paiement CA, Feltz DL. Regressing team performance on collective efficacy: considerations of temporal proximity and concordance. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2007;11:1–24. doi: 10.1080/10913670709337009.
    1. Bandura A. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In: Pajares F, Urdan TC, editors. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing; 2006. pp. 307–337.
    1. Myers ND, Prilleltensky I, Hill CR, Feltz DL. Well-being self-efficacy and complier average causal effect modeling: a substantive-methodological synergy. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2017;30:135–144. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.02.010.
    1. Prilleltensky I, Dietz S, Prilleltensky O, Myers ND, Rubenstein CL, Jin Y, McMahon A. Assessing multidimensional well-being: development and validation of the I COPPE scale. J Community Psychol. 2015;43:199–226. doi: 10.1002/jcop.21674.
    1. Chmiel M, Brunner M, Martin R, Schalke D. Revisiting the structure of subjective well-being in middle-aged adults. Soc Indic Res. 2012;106:109–116. doi: 10.1007/s11205-011-9796-7.
    1. Pavot W, Diener E. The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. J Posit Psychol. 2008;3:137–152. doi: 10.1080/17439760701756946.
    1. Prilleltensky I, Prilleltensky O. Promoting well-being: linking personal, organizational, and community change. Hoboken: Wiley; 2006.
    1. Myers Nicholas D., Dietz Samantha, Prilleltensky Isaac, Prilleltensky Ora, McMahon Adam, Rubenstein Carolyn L., Lee Seungmin. Efficacy of the Fun For Wellness Online Intervention to Promote Well-Being Actions: A Secondary Data Analysis. Games for Health Journal. 2018;7(4):225–239. doi: 10.1089/g4h.2017.0132.
    1. Rubenstein CL. Assessing actions and feelings related to multidimensional well-being: validation of the I COPPE actions and feelings scales. 2017.
    1. Myers ND, Park SE, Lefevor GT, Dietz S, Prilleltensky I, Prado GJ. Measuring multidimensional well-being with the I COPPE scale in a Hispanic sample. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2016;20:230–243. doi: 10.1080/1091367X.2016.1226836.
    1. Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Rep. 1985;100:126–131.
    1. McAuley E. Self-efficacy and the maintenance of exercise participation in older adults. J Behav Med. 1993;16:103–113. doi: 10.1007/BF00844757.
    1. McAuley E. The role of efficacy cognitions in the prediction of exercise behavior in middle-aged adults. J Behav Med. 1992;15:65–88. doi: 10.1007/BF00848378.
    1. Cobb NK, Poirier J. Effectiveness of a multimodal online well-being intervention. Am J Prev Med. 2014;46:41–48. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.08.018.
    1. World Health Organization . Global recommendations on physical activity for health. 2010.
    1. Ainsworth BE, Bassett DR, Strath SJ, Swartz AM, O’Brien WL, Thompson RW, et al. Comparison of three methods for measuring the time spent in physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(Suppl 9):457–464. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200009001-00004.
    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;35:1381–1395. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000078924.61453.FB.
    1. Bredin SSD, Gledhill N, Jamnik VK, Warburton DER. PAR-Q+ and ePARmed-X+: new risk stratification and physical activity clearance strategy for physicians and patients alike. Can Fam Physician. 2013;59:273–277.
    1. Stuart EA, Perry DF, Le H, Ialongo NS. Estimating intervention effects of prevention programs: accounting for noncompliance. Prev Sci. 2008;9:288–298. doi: 10.1007/s11121-008-0104-y.
    1. Rubenstein CL, Duff J, Prilleltensky I, Jin Y, Dietz S, Myers ND, et al. Demographic group differences in domain-specific well-being. J Community Psychol. 2016;44:499–515. doi: 10.1002/jcop.21784.
    1. Myers ND, Feltz DL, Wolfe EW. A confirmatory study of rating scale category effectiveness for the coaching efficacy scale. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2008;79:300–311. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2008.10599493.
    1. Jo B. Model misspecification sensitivity analysis in estimating causal effects of interventions with non-compliance. Stat Med. 2002;21:3161–3181. doi: 10.1002/sim.1267.
    1. Kilpatrick FP, Cantril H. Self-anchoring scale: a measure of the individual’s unique reality world. J Individ Psychol. 1960;16:158–170.
    1. Durayappah A. The 3P model: a general theory of subjective well-being. J Happiness Stud. 2011;12:681–716. doi: 10.1007/s10902-010-9223-9.
    1. Myers ND, Prilleltensky I, Jin Y, Dietz S, Rubenstein CL, Prilleltensky O, McMahon A. Empirical contributions of the past in assessing multidimensional well-being. J Community Psychol. 2014;42:789–798. doi: 10.1002/jcop.21653.
    1. Ware JE. SF-36 health survey update. Spine. 2000;25:3130–3139. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00008.
    1. International physical activity questionnaire research committee . Guidelines for data processing and analysis of the international physical activity questionnaire (IPAQ) – short and long forms. 2005.
    1. American Educational Research Association . American Psychological Association, National Council on measurement in education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 2014.
    1. Asparouhov T, Muthén BO. Exploratory structural equation modeling. Struct Equ Model. 2009;16:397–438. doi: 10.1080/10705510903008204.
    1. Hancock GR, Mueller RO. Cudeck R, du Toit SHC, Sörbom D, editors. Structural equation modeling: past and present. A festschrift in honor of Karl G. Jöreskog. Chicago: Scientific Software International, Inc; 2001. Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems; pp. 195–261.
    1. McDonald RP. The theoretical foundations of common factor analysis, principal factor analysis, and alpha factor analysis. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1970;23:1–21. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1970.tb00432.x.
    1. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555.
    1. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User’s guide. 8th ed. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén. 1998.
    1. Jo B. Estimation of intervention effects with noncompliance: alternative model specifications. J Educ Behav Stat. 2002;27:385–409. doi: 10.3102/10769986027004385.
    1. Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 1999;319:670–674. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7211.670.
    1. Angrist J, Imbens GW, Rubin DB. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Stat Assoc. 1996;91:444–472. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1996.10476902.
    1. Bloom HS. Accounting for no-shows in experimental evaluation designs. Eval Rev. 1984;8:225–246. doi: 10.1177/0193841X8400800205.
    1. Frangakis CE, Rubin DB. Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics. 2002;58:21–29. doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2002.00021.x.
    1. Rubin DB. Bayesian inference for causal effect: the role of randomization. Ann Stat. 1978;6:34–58. doi: 10.1214/aos/1176344064.
    1. Jo B. Statistical power in randomized intervention studies with noncompliance. Psychol Methods. 2002;7:178–193. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.178.
    1. MacKinnon D. Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2008.
    1. Jo B, Ginexi EM, Ialongo NS. Handling missing data in randomized experiments with noncompliance. Prev Sci. 2010;11:384–396. doi: 10.1007/s11121-010-0175-4.
    1. Vickerstaff V, Ambler G, King M, et al. Are multiple primary outcomes analysed appropriately in randomized controlled trials? A review. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;45:8–12. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.07.016.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998.
    1. Muthén Linda K., Muthén Bengt O. How to Use a Monte Carlo Study to Decide on Sample Size and Determine Power. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2002;9(4):599–620. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_8.
    1. Myers ND, Ntoumanis N, Gunnell KE, Gucciardi DF, Lee S. A review of some emergent quantitative analyses in sport and exercise psychology. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2018;11:70–100. doi: 10.1080/1750984X.2017.1317356.
    1. Singal AG, Higgins PDR, Waljee AK. A primer on effectiveness and efficacy trials. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2014;5:e45. doi: 10.1038/ctg.2013.13.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe