A Dyadic Action Control Trial in Overweight and Obese Couples (DYACTIC)

BMC Public Health

Corina Berli²  Urte Scholz¹ 

[1] Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Applied Social Psychology, Binzmuehlestrasse 14 / Box 14, CH-8050 Zürich, Switzerland;Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Health Psychology, Fabrikstrasse 8, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland

关键词: Dyadic;    Health Action Process Approach;    Couples;    Action control;    Randomized controlled trial;    Physical activity;   

Others  :  1091249
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-1321

 received in 2014-11-29, accepted in 2014-12-17,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Enhancing physical activity in overweight and obese individuals is an important means to promote health in this target population. The Health Action Process Approach (HAPA), which was the theoretical framework of this study, focuses on individual self-regulation variables for successful health behavior change. One key self-regulation variable of this model is action control with its three subfacets awareness of intentions, self-monitoring and regulatory effort. The social context of individuals, however, is usually neglected in common health behavior change theories. In order to integrate social influences into the HAPA, this randomized controlled trial investigated the effectiveness of a dyadic conceptualization of action control for promoting physical activity.

Methods/Design

This protocol describes the design of a single-blind randomized controlled trial, which comprises four experimental groups: a dyadic action control group, an individual action control group and two control groups. Participants of this study are overweight or obese, heterosexual adult couples who intend to increase their physical activity. Blocking as means of a gender-balanced randomization is used to allocate couples to conditions and partners to either being the target person of the intervention or to the partner condition. The ecological momentary intervention takes place in the first 14 days after baseline assessment and is followed by another 14 days diary phase without intervention. Follow-ups are one month and six months later. Subsequent to the six-months follow-up another 14 days diary phase takes place.

The main outcome measures are self-reported and accelerometer-assessed physical activity. Secondary outcome measures are Body Mass Index (BMI), aerobic fitness and habitual physical activity.

Discussion

This is the first study examining a dyadic action control intervention in comparison to an individual action control condition and two control groups applying a single-blind randomized control trial. Challenges with running couples studies as well as advantages and disadvantages of certain design-related decisions are discussed. This RCT was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (PP00P1_133632/1) and was registered on 27/04/2012 at http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15705531.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Scholz and Berli; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Center of Disease Control: Physical activity for everyone. How much physical activity do adults need? [http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/guidelines/adults.html webcite]
• [2]World Health Organization: Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health. [http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241599979_eng.pdf?ua=1 webcite]
• [3]Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, Guthold R, Haskell W, Ekelund U: Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet 2012, 380:247-257.
• [4]FSO Federal Statistical Office: Swiss Health Survey. 2012.
• [5]World Health Organization: Obesity. preventing and managing the global epidemic: report of a WHO consultation. [http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_894.pdf?ua=1 webcite]
• [6]Sheeran P: Intention-behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review. In European Review of Social Psychology. Edited by Stroebe W, Hewstone M. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2001:1-36.
• [7]Ajzen I: The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Dec 1991, 50:179-211.
• [8]Maddux JE, Rogers RW: Protection motivation and self-efficacy: a revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Exp Soc Psychol 1983, 19:469-479.
• [9]Bandura A: Social cognitive theory. An agentic perspective. Annu Rev Psychol 2001, 52:1-26.
• [10]Schwarzer R: Modeling health behavior change. How to predict and modify the adoption and maintenance of health behaviors. Appl Psychol-Int Rev 2008, 57:1-29.
• [11]Berli C, Loretini P, Radtke T, Hornung R, Scholz U: Predicting physical activity in adolescents: the role of compensatory health beliefs within the health action process approach. Psychol Health 2014, 29:458-474.
• [12]Parschau L, Barz M, Richert J, Knoll N, Lippke S, Schwarzer R: Physical activity among adults with obesity: testing the health action process approach. Rehabil Psychol 2014, 59:42-49.
• [13]Sniehotta FF, Scholz U, Schwarzer R: Bridging the intention-behaviour gap: planning, self-efficacy, and action control in the adoption and maintenance of physical exercise. Psychol Health 2005, 20:143-160.
• [14]Bandura A: Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York, NY, US: W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co; 1997.
• [15]Leventhal H, Singer R, Jones S: Effects of fear and specificity of recommendation upon attitudes and behavior. J Personality Soc Psychol 1965, 2:20-29.
• [16]Gollwitzer PM: Implementation intentions. Strong effects of simple plans. Am Psychol 1999, 54:493-503.
• [17]Gollwitzer PM, Sheeran P: Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and processes. In Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol 38. Edited by Zanna MP. San Diego, CA, US: Elsevier Academic Press; 2006:69-119. [Advances in experimental social psychology; Vol 38; ISSN: 0065–2601 (Print)]
• [18]Sniehotta FF, Schwarzer R, Scholz U, Schüz B: Action planning and coping planning for long-term lifestyle change. Theory and assessment. Eur J Soc Psychol 2005, 35:565-576.
• [19]Carver CS, Scheier MF: On the self-regulation of behavior. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
• [20]Sniehotta FF, Nagy G, Scholz U, Schwarzer R: The role of action control in implementing intentions during the first weeks of behaviour change. Br J Soc Psychol 2006, 45:87-106.
• [21]Karoly P: Mechanisms of self-regulation. A systems view. Annu Rev Psychol 1993, 44:23-52.
• [22]Michie S, Abraham C, Whittington C, McAteer J, Gupta S: Effective techniques in healthy eating and physical activity interventions: a meta-regression. Health Psychol 2009, 28:690-701.
• [23]Schüz B, Sniehotta FF, Schwarzer R: Stage-specific effects of an action control intervention on dental flossing. Health Educ Res 2007, 22:332-341.
• [24]Scholz U, Nagy G, Goehner W, Luszczynska A, Kliegel M: Changes in self-regulatory cognitions as predictors of changes in smoking and nutrition behaviour. Psychol Health 2009, 24:545-561.
• [25]Sniehotta FF, Scholz U, Schwarzer R, Fuhrmann B, Kiwus U, Völler H: Long-term effects of two psychological interventions on physical exercise and self-regulation following coronary rehabilitation. Int J Behav Med 2005, 12:244-255.
• [26]Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis J, Hardeman W, Eccles MP, Cane J, Wood CE: 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, 46:81-95.
• [27]Lawrence DB, Allison W, Chen JC, Demand M: Improving medication adherence with a targeted technology-driven disease management intervention. Dis Manag 2008, 11:141-144.
• [28]Wise J, Operario D: Use of electronic reminder devices to improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review. AIDS Patient Care and STDs 2008, 22:495-504.
• [29]Prestwich A, Perugini M, Hurling R: Can the effects of implementation intentions on exercise be enhanced using text messages? Psychol Health 2009, 24:677-687.
• [30]Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Norcross JC: In search of how people change: applications to addictive behaviors. Am Psychol 1992, 47:1102-1114.
• [31]Scholz U, Klaghofer R, Dux R, Roellin M, Boehler A, Muellhaupt B, Noll G, Wuthrich RP, Goetzmann L: Predicting intentions and adherence behavior in the context of organ transplantation. Gender differences of provided social support. J Psychosom Res 2012, 72:214-219.
• [32]Ochsner S, Luszczynska A, Stadler G, Knoll N, Hornung R, Scholz U: The interplay of received social support and self-regulatory factors in smoking cessation. Psychol Health 2014, 29:16-31.
• [33]Scholz U, Ochsner S, Hornung R, Knoll N: Does social support really help to eat a low‒fat diet? Main effects and gender differences of received social support within the Health Action Process Approach. Applied Psychol: Health and Well-Being 2013, 5:270-290.
• [34]Burkert S, Scholz U, Gralla O, Roigas J, Knoll N: Dyadic planning of health-behavior change after prostatectomy. A randomized-controlled planning intervention. Soc Sci Med 2011, 73:783-792.
• [35]Prestwich A, Conner MT, Lawton RJ, Ward JK, Ayres K, McEachan , Rosemary RC: Randomized controlled trial of collaborative implementation intentions targeting working adults' physical activity. Health Psychol 2012, 31:486-495.
• [36]Prestwich A, Conner MT, Lawton RJ, Ward JK, Ayres K, McEachan , Rosemary RC: Partner- and planning-based interventions to reduce fat consumption: Randomized controlled trial. Br J Health Psychol 2014, 19:132-148.
• [37]Hamaker EL: Why researchers should think 'within-person': a paradigmatic rationale. In Handbook of research methods for studying daily life. Edited by Mehl MR, Conner TS. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press; 2012:43-61.
• [38]Ram N, Gerstorf D: Time-structured and net intraindividual variability: tools for examining the development of dynamic characteristics and processes. Psychol Aging 2009, 24:778-791.
• [39]Scholz U, Sniehotta FF, Schüz B, Oeberst A: Dynamics in self-regulation: plan execution self-efficacy and mastery of action plans. J Appl Soc Psychol 2007, 37:2706-2725.
• [40]Bolger N, Davis A, Rafaeli E: Diary methods: capturing life as it is lived. Annu Rev Psychol 2003, 54:579-616.
• [41]Fahrenberg J, Myrtek M, Pawlik K, Perrez M: Ambulatory assessment - monitoring behavior in daily life settings. Eur J Psychol Assess 2007, 23:206-213.
• [42]Heron KE, Smyth JM: Ecological momentary interventions: incorporating mobile technology into psychosocial and health behaviour treatments. Br J Health Psychol 2010, 15:1-39.
• [43]Michie S, Abraham C: Interventions to change health behaviours: evidence-based or evidence-inspired? Psychol Health 2004, 19:29-49.
• [44]Bolger N, Laurenceau J: Intensive longitudinal methods: an introduction to diary and experience sampling research. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press; 2013. [Methodology in the social sciences]
• [45]Xie H, Tao J, McHugo GJ, Drake RE: Comparing statistical methods for analyzing skewed longitudinal count data with many zeros: An example of smoking cessation. J Subst Abus Treat 2013, 45:99-108.
• [46]Scholz U, Sniehotta FF: Langzeiteffekte einer Planungs- und Handlungskontrollintervention auf die körperliche Aktivität von Herzpatienten nach der Rehabilitation. = Long-term effects of a planning and action control intervention on physical activity of cardiac patients after rehabilitation. Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie 2006, 14:73-81.
• [47]Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A: GPower 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007, 39:175-191.
• [48]Forman EM, Butryn ML, Hoffman KL, Herbert JD: An open trial of an acceptance-based behavioral intervention for weight loss. Cognitive and Behav Pract 2009, 16:223-235.
• [49]Bolger N, Stadler G, Laurenceau J: Statistical power analysis for intensive longitudinal studies. In Handbook of research methods for studying daily life. Edited by Mehl MR, Conner TS. New York: Guildford Press; 2012:285-301.
• [50]Byrne NM, Meerkin JD, Laukkanen R, Ross R, Fogelholm M, Hills AP: Weight loss strategies for obese adults: personalized weight management program vs. Standard Care Obesity 2006, 14:1777-1788.
• [51]Lewis BA, Napolitano MA, Whiteley JA, Marcus BH: The effect of preferences for print versus telephone interventions on compliance and attrition in a randomized controlled physical activity trial. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 2006, 7:453-462.