Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Can individual, dyadic, or collaborative planning reduce sedentary behavior? A randomized controlled trial [with consumer summary]
Szczuka Z, Kulis E, Boberska M, Banik A, Kruk M, Keller J, Knoll N, Scholz U, Abraham C, Luszczynska A
Social Science & Medicine 2021 Oct;287:114336
clinical trial
6/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

RATIONALE: 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). OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy of individual planning, dyadic planning (ie, joint planning, targeting the behavior of one person only: the target person), and collaborative planning (ie, joint planning and joint behavioral performance) on sedentary behavior among dyads. METHODS: Dyads (N = 320 target persons and their partners, aged 18 to 90 years) were randomized into three PA planning conditions (individual, dyadic, or collaborative) or an active (education) control condition. Main outcomes, ie, 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. RESULTS: 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 = 0.013). There was an improvement in the proportion of time spent in SB and light-intensity PA (p = 0.019), and the proportion of time spent in SB and total PA (p = 0.018), 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
With permission from Excerpta Medica Inc.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help