Impact of an Adaptive Worksite Diabetes Prevention Trial on Health Action Process Approach Outcomes Regarding Dietary Intake and Physical Activity.

Health behavior research Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-31 DOI:10.4148/2572-1836.1218
Danielle E King, Carla K Miller, Haikady N Nagaraja, Kentaro Fujita, Jennifer S Cheavens
{"title":"Impact of an Adaptive Worksite Diabetes Prevention Trial on Health Action Process Approach Outcomes Regarding Dietary Intake and Physical Activity.","authors":"Danielle E King, Carla K Miller, Haikady N Nagaraja, Kentaro Fujita, Jennifer S Cheavens","doi":"10.4148/2572-1836.1218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Weight loss, through a reduction in energy intake and increase in energy expenditure, can reduce diabetes risk in people with prediabetes. However, lifestyle change can be challenging even with positive intentions. The Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) theoretical framework bridges the intention-behavior gap by targeting planning behaviors and strengthening efficacious beliefs for behavioral change. In the current trial, an adaptive design was employed to examine differences in HAPA measures (i.e., planning and self-efficacy) regarding the target behaviors of dietary intake and physical activity (PA). Adults ≥ 21 years old with overweight or obesity and prediabetes (n = 185) received the standard Group Lifestyle Balance (GLB) intervention during the first month of treatment. Weight loss responders (lost > 2.5% of weight) at week five remained in GLB during weeks 5-16; slow responders (lost ≤ 2.5%) were stratified to the adaptive GLB Plus (GLB+) intervention during weeks 5-16. GLB+ augmented self-regulatory skills and practices consistent with HAPA. We conducted mixed model analyses with a group-by-time interaction for fixed effects at four months. GLB experienced greater improvement in behavioral intention for both diet and PA, planning behaviors (action and coping planning) for diet, and self-efficacy beliefs (action and maintenance self-efficacy) for PA compared to GLB+ (all <i>p</i>s < .0125). However, GLB+ also experienced statistically significant improvement in planning and self-efficacy and in energy intake and food group servings (all <i>p</i>s < .01). Whereas an adaptive intervention can be advantageous in improving HAPA measures and food choices, greater focus on increasing PA is needed. Additional research may help to determine effective PA strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":73205,"journal":{"name":"Health behavior research","volume":"7 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11488647/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health behavior research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4148/2572-1836.1218","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Weight loss, through a reduction in energy intake and increase in energy expenditure, can reduce diabetes risk in people with prediabetes. However, lifestyle change can be challenging even with positive intentions. The Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) theoretical framework bridges the intention-behavior gap by targeting planning behaviors and strengthening efficacious beliefs for behavioral change. In the current trial, an adaptive design was employed to examine differences in HAPA measures (i.e., planning and self-efficacy) regarding the target behaviors of dietary intake and physical activity (PA). Adults ≥ 21 years old with overweight or obesity and prediabetes (n = 185) received the standard Group Lifestyle Balance (GLB) intervention during the first month of treatment. Weight loss responders (lost > 2.5% of weight) at week five remained in GLB during weeks 5-16; slow responders (lost ≤ 2.5%) were stratified to the adaptive GLB Plus (GLB+) intervention during weeks 5-16. GLB+ augmented self-regulatory skills and practices consistent with HAPA. We conducted mixed model analyses with a group-by-time interaction for fixed effects at four months. GLB experienced greater improvement in behavioral intention for both diet and PA, planning behaviors (action and coping planning) for diet, and self-efficacy beliefs (action and maintenance self-efficacy) for PA compared to GLB+ (all ps < .0125). However, GLB+ also experienced statistically significant improvement in planning and self-efficacy and in energy intake and food group servings (all ps < .01). Whereas an adaptive intervention can be advantageous in improving HAPA measures and food choices, greater focus on increasing PA is needed. Additional research may help to determine effective PA strategies.

适应性工作场所糖尿病预防试验对膳食摄入和体育锻炼的健康行动过程方法结果的影响。
通过减少能量摄入和增加能量消耗来减轻体重,可以降低糖尿病前期患者的糖尿病风险。然而,即使有积极的意愿,生活方式的改变也可能具有挑战性。健康行动过程方法(HAPA)理论框架通过针对计划行为和加强有效信念来改变行为,从而弥补了意图与行为之间的差距。在目前的试验中,我们采用了适应性设计,以检查有关饮食摄入和体育锻炼(PA)目标行为的 HAPA 测量(即计划和自我效能)的差异。年龄≥ 21 岁的超重或肥胖及糖尿病前期成人(n = 185)在治疗的第一个月接受了标准的团体生活方式平衡(GLB)干预。第5周时体重减轻者(体重减轻> 2.5%)在第5-16周期间继续接受GLB干预;体重减轻缓慢者(体重减轻≤ 2.5%)在第5-16周期间分层接受适应性GLB+(GLB+)干预。GLB+ 增强了与 HAPA 一致的自我调节技能和实践。我们对四个月时的固定效应进行了混合模型分析,并进行了组间时间交互作用分析。与 GLB+ 相比,GLB 在饮食和运动方面的行为意向、饮食方面的计划行为(行动和应对计划)以及运动方面的自我效能信念(行动和维持自我效能)都有了更大的改善(所有 ps < .0125)。然而,GLB+ 在计划和自我效能以及能量摄入和食物组份量方面也有了统计学意义上的显著改善(所有 ps 均小于 0.01)。虽然适应性干预在改善 HAPA 测量和食物选择方面具有优势,但仍需更加关注增加 PA。更多的研究可能有助于确定有效的 PA 策略。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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