选择健康:基于理论、在线提供、量身定制的减肥和减肥维持干预措施的可接受性和可行性。

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Iga Palacz-Poborczyk, Felix Naughton, Aleksandra Luszczynska, Anna Januszewicz, Eleanor Quested, Martin S Hagger, Sherry Pagoto, Peter Verboon, Suzanne Robinson, Dominika Kwasnicka
{"title":"选择健康:基于理论、在线提供、量身定制的减肥和减肥维持干预措施的可接受性和可行性。","authors":"Iga Palacz-Poborczyk, Felix Naughton, Aleksandra Luszczynska, Anna Januszewicz, Eleanor Quested, Martin S Hagger, Sherry Pagoto, Peter Verboon, Suzanne Robinson, Dominika Kwasnicka","doi":"10.1093/tbm/ibae023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Few weight loss and weight loss maintenance interventions are tailored to include factors demonstrated to predict the user's behavior. Establishing the feasibility and acceptability of such interventions is crucial. The aim of this study was to assess the acceptability and feasibility of a theory-based, tailored, online-delivered weight loss and weight loss maintenance intervention (Choosing Health). We conducted a mixed methods process evaluation of the Choosing Health tailored intervention, nested in a randomized controlled trial (N = 288) with an embedded N-of-1 study, investigating participants' and implementers' experiences related to intervention context, implementation, and mechanisms of impact. Measures included: (i) surveys, (ii) data-prompted interviews (DPIs) with study participants, (iii) semi-structured interviews with implementers, and (iv) intervention access and engagement data. Five themes described the acceptability of the intervention to participants: (i) monitoring behavior change and personal progress to better understand the weight management process, (ii) working collaboratively with the intervention implementers to achieve participants' goals, (iii) perceived benefits of non-judgmental and problem-solving tone of the intervention, (iv) changes in personal perception of the weight management process due to intervention tailoring, and (v) insufficient intervention content tailoring. The intervention delivery was feasible, however, emails and text messages differed in terms of accessibility and resources required to deliver the content. The use of Ecological Momentary Assessment as a technique to gather personal data for further tailoring was acceptable, and facilitated behavior change monitoring. Personalization of the intervention content above and beyond domain-specific issues, for example, by addressing participants' social roles may better match their needs. Support from the implementers and feedback on body composition changes may increase participants' engagement.</p>","PeriodicalId":48679,"journal":{"name":"Translational Behavioral Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"434-443"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Choosing Health: acceptability and feasibility of a theory-based, online-delivered, tailored weight loss, and weight loss maintenance intervention.\",\"authors\":\"Iga Palacz-Poborczyk, Felix Naughton, Aleksandra Luszczynska, Anna Januszewicz, Eleanor Quested, Martin S Hagger, Sherry Pagoto, Peter Verboon, Suzanne Robinson, Dominika Kwasnicka\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/tbm/ibae023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Few weight loss and weight loss maintenance interventions are tailored to include factors demonstrated to predict the user's behavior. Establishing the feasibility and acceptability of such interventions is crucial. The aim of this study was to assess the acceptability and feasibility of a theory-based, tailored, online-delivered weight loss and weight loss maintenance intervention (Choosing Health). We conducted a mixed methods process evaluation of the Choosing Health tailored intervention, nested in a randomized controlled trial (N = 288) with an embedded N-of-1 study, investigating participants' and implementers' experiences related to intervention context, implementation, and mechanisms of impact. Measures included: (i) surveys, (ii) data-prompted interviews (DPIs) with study participants, (iii) semi-structured interviews with implementers, and (iv) intervention access and engagement data. Five themes described the acceptability of the intervention to participants: (i) monitoring behavior change and personal progress to better understand the weight management process, (ii) working collaboratively with the intervention implementers to achieve participants' goals, (iii) perceived benefits of non-judgmental and problem-solving tone of the intervention, (iv) changes in personal perception of the weight management process due to intervention tailoring, and (v) insufficient intervention content tailoring. The intervention delivery was feasible, however, emails and text messages differed in terms of accessibility and resources required to deliver the content. The use of Ecological Momentary Assessment as a technique to gather personal data for further tailoring was acceptable, and facilitated behavior change monitoring. Personalization of the intervention content above and beyond domain-specific issues, for example, by addressing participants' social roles may better match their needs. Support from the implementers and feedback on body composition changes may increase participants' engagement.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Translational Behavioral Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"434-443\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Translational Behavioral Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibae023\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational Behavioral Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibae023","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

很少有减肥和维持体重的干预措施是根据预测使用者行为的因素而量身定制的。确定此类干预措施的可行性和可接受性至关重要。本研究旨在评估基于理论、量身定制、在线提供的减肥和减肥维持干预措施("选择健康")的可接受性和可行性。我们对 "选择健康 "定制干预进行了混合方法过程评估,嵌套在随机对照试验(N = 288)中,并嵌入了 N-of-1 研究,调查参与者和实施者在干预背景、实施和影响机制方面的经验。衡量标准包括(i) 调查,(ii) 与研究参与者进行的数据提示访谈 (DPI),(iii) 与实施者进行的半结构化访谈,以及 (iv) 干预获取和参与数据。五个主题描述了参与者对干预措施的接受程度:(i) 监测行为变化和个人进展,以更好地了解体重管理过程;(ii) 与干预措施实施者合作,以实现参与者的目标;(iii) 感知到干预措施的非评判性和解决问题的基调所带来的益处;(iv) 由于干预措施的量身定制,个人对体重管理过程的看法发生了变化;(v) 干预内容量身定制不足。干预措施的实施是可行的,但电子邮件和短信在实施内容的可及性和所需资源方面存在差异。使用 "生态瞬时评估 "作为收集个人数据以进一步定制干预措施的技术是可以接受的,并且有助于行为变化监测。除了特定领域的问题外,干预内容的个性化,例如通过解决参与者的社会角色问题,可能更符合他们的需要。实施者的支持和对身体成分变化的反馈可能会提高参与者的参与度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Choosing Health: acceptability and feasibility of a theory-based, online-delivered, tailored weight loss, and weight loss maintenance intervention.

Few weight loss and weight loss maintenance interventions are tailored to include factors demonstrated to predict the user's behavior. Establishing the feasibility and acceptability of such interventions is crucial. The aim of this study was to assess the acceptability and feasibility of a theory-based, tailored, online-delivered weight loss and weight loss maintenance intervention (Choosing Health). We conducted a mixed methods process evaluation of the Choosing Health tailored intervention, nested in a randomized controlled trial (N = 288) with an embedded N-of-1 study, investigating participants' and implementers' experiences related to intervention context, implementation, and mechanisms of impact. Measures included: (i) surveys, (ii) data-prompted interviews (DPIs) with study participants, (iii) semi-structured interviews with implementers, and (iv) intervention access and engagement data. Five themes described the acceptability of the intervention to participants: (i) monitoring behavior change and personal progress to better understand the weight management process, (ii) working collaboratively with the intervention implementers to achieve participants' goals, (iii) perceived benefits of non-judgmental and problem-solving tone of the intervention, (iv) changes in personal perception of the weight management process due to intervention tailoring, and (v) insufficient intervention content tailoring. The intervention delivery was feasible, however, emails and text messages differed in terms of accessibility and resources required to deliver the content. The use of Ecological Momentary Assessment as a technique to gather personal data for further tailoring was acceptable, and facilitated behavior change monitoring. Personalization of the intervention content above and beyond domain-specific issues, for example, by addressing participants' social roles may better match their needs. Support from the implementers and feedback on body composition changes may increase participants' engagement.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Translational Behavioral Medicine
Translational Behavioral Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH -
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
87
期刊介绍: Translational Behavioral Medicine publishes content that engages, informs, and catalyzes dialogue about behavioral medicine among the research, practice, and policy communities. TBM began receiving an Impact Factor in 2015 and currently holds an Impact Factor of 2.989. TBM is one of two journals published by the Society of Behavioral Medicine. The Society of Behavioral Medicine is a multidisciplinary organization of clinicians, educators, and scientists dedicated to promoting the study of the interactions of behavior with biology and the environment, and then applying that knowledge to improve the health and well-being of individuals, families, communities, and populations.
×
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