Feasibility Test of Personalized (N-of-1) Trials for Increasing Middle-Aged and Older Adults' Physical Activity.

IF 2 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Ciarán P Friel, Ashley M Goodwin, Patrick L Robles, Mark J Butler, Challace Pahlevan-Ibrekic, Joan Duer-Hefele, Frank Vicari, Samantha Gordon, Thevaa Chandereng, Ying Kuen Ken Cheung, Jerry Suls, Karina W Davidson
{"title":"Feasibility Test of Personalized (N-of-1) Trials for Increasing Middle-Aged and Older Adults' Physical Activity.","authors":"Ciarán P Friel, Ashley M Goodwin, Patrick L Robles, Mark J Butler, Challace Pahlevan-Ibrekic, Joan Duer-Hefele, Frank Vicari, Samantha Gordon, Thevaa Chandereng, Ying Kuen Ken Cheung, Jerry Suls, Karina W Davidson","doi":"10.1007/s12529-024-10319-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To test the effectiveness and feasibility of a remotely delivered intervention to increase physical activity (walking) in middle-aged and older adults.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This study used a personalized (N-of-1) trial design.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>This study took place at a major healthcare system from November 2021 to February 2022.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>Sixty adults (45-75 years, 92% female, 80% white) were recruited.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>A 10-week study comprising a 2-week baseline, followed by four 2-week periods where four behavior change techniques (BCTs) - self-monitoring, goal setting, action planning, and feedback - were delivered one at a time in random order.</p><p><strong>Measures: </strong>Activity was measured by a Fitbit, and intervention components delivered by email/text. Average daily steps were compared between baseline and intervention. Participants completed satisfaction items derived from the System Usability Scale and reported attitudes and opinions about personalized trials.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants rated personalized trial components as feasible and acceptable. Changes in steps between baseline and intervention were not significant, but a large heterogeneity of treatment effects existed, suggesting some participants significantly increased walking while others significantly decreased.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our intervention was well-accepted but use of BCTs delivered individually did not result in a significant increase in steps. Feasibility and heterogeneity of treatment effects support adopting a personalized trial approach to optimize intervention results.</p>","PeriodicalId":54208,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Behavioral Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Behavioral Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-024-10319-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To test the effectiveness and feasibility of a remotely delivered intervention to increase physical activity (walking) in middle-aged and older adults.

Design: This study used a personalized (N-of-1) trial design.

Setting: This study took place at a major healthcare system from November 2021 to February 2022.

Subjects: Sixty adults (45-75 years, 92% female, 80% white) were recruited.

Intervention: A 10-week study comprising a 2-week baseline, followed by four 2-week periods where four behavior change techniques (BCTs) - self-monitoring, goal setting, action planning, and feedback - were delivered one at a time in random order.

Measures: Activity was measured by a Fitbit, and intervention components delivered by email/text. Average daily steps were compared between baseline and intervention. Participants completed satisfaction items derived from the System Usability Scale and reported attitudes and opinions about personalized trials.

Results: Participants rated personalized trial components as feasible and acceptable. Changes in steps between baseline and intervention were not significant, but a large heterogeneity of treatment effects existed, suggesting some participants significantly increased walking while others significantly decreased.

Conclusions: Our intervention was well-accepted but use of BCTs delivered individually did not result in a significant increase in steps. Feasibility and heterogeneity of treatment effects support adopting a personalized trial approach to optimize intervention results.

Abstract Image

增加中老年人体育锻炼的个性化(N-of-1)试验可行性测试。
目的:测试远程干预对中老年人增加体育锻炼(步行)的有效性和可行性:本研究采用个性化(N-of-1)试验设计:本研究于 2021 年 11 月至 2022 年 2 月在一家大型医疗保健系统进行:招募了 60 名成年人(45-75 岁,92% 为女性,80% 为白人):为期 10 周的研究包括 2 周的基线期,然后是 4 个为期 2 周的阶段,在这 4 个阶段中,以随机顺序每次提供一种行为改变技术(BCT)--自我监控、目标设定、行动规划和反馈:活动量通过 Fitbit 进行测量,干预内容通过电子邮件/短信发送。比较基线与干预措施之间的日平均步数。参与者填写从系统可用性量表中得出的满意度项目,并报告对个性化试验的态度和意见:结果:参与者认为个性化试验的组成部分是可行和可接受的。基线与干预之间的步数变化并不显著,但治疗效果存在较大的异质性,表明一些参与者的步行次数显著增加,而另一些参与者的步行次数则显著减少:结论:我们的干预措施被广泛接受,但单独使用BCTs并不能显著增加步行步数。治疗效果的可行性和异质性支持采用个性化试验方法来优化干预效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Behavioral Medicine (IJBM) is the official scientific journal of the International Society for Behavioral Medicine (ISBM). IJBM seeks to present the best theoretically-driven, evidence-based work in the field of behavioral medicine from around the globe. IJBM embraces multiple theoretical perspectives, research methodologies, groups of interest, and levels of analysis. The journal is interested in research across the broad spectrum of behavioral medicine, including health-behavior relationships, the prevention of illness and the promotion of health, the effects of illness on the self and others, the effectiveness of novel interventions, identification of biobehavioral mechanisms, and the influence of social factors on health. We welcome experimental, non-experimental, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies as well as implementation and dissemination research, integrative reviews, and meta-analyses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信