Does Real Age Feedback Really Motivate Us to Change our Lifestyle? Results from an Online Experiment.

We set out to research the causal impact of Real Age feedback, a popular tool on health and lifestyle platforms, on health behaviors. We ran an online experiment where participants were randomly assigned a Real Age that differed in both direction (older or younger) and magnitude (much or slightly) from their passport age, or to a control condition where they received no Real Age feedback. We measured the impact of Real Age feedback on motivation to begin a healthier lifestyle, interest in taking a Real Age test, and percentage click-rate on an optional health link. We found that younger Real Age feedback was associated with higher interest. In addition, participants who received a slightly older Real Age were significantly less motivated to begin a healthier lifestyle compared to not only those who received a much younger or much older Real Age, but also to those in the control condition, suggesting a backfire effect. This effect remained even after accounting for participant health, demographics, and other psychological correlates to motivation. Real Age tests may backfire and demotivate people, and the positive effects they may have on psychological states may not outweigh the negative effects. Though promising, we caution using Real Age tests in their current form as stand-alone interventions to get people motivated.

When it comes to sedentary behaviour modification, should people be told what to do? A randomized comparison trial among home-based office workers living in Ontario, Canada.

The effects of adding choice architecture to a theory-based (Health Action Process Approach; HAPA) sedentary intervention remain unknown. To investigate whether choice architecture enhances a theory-based sedentary behaviour reduction intervention in home-based office workers. A 4-week HAPA-based intervention was conducted in London, Canada. Choice architecture was tested as an enhancement via a two (group: 'Choice of Intervention' vs. 'No Choice Intervention') by two (time: Baseline vs. Week 4) factorial repeated measure randomized comparison design. Sedentary behaviour reduction strategies focussed on obtaining a sedentary break frequency (BF) of every 30-45 min with break durations (BD) of 2-3 min. BF, BD, sitting, standing, and moving time were objectively measured (activPAL4™) at both time points. Participants (n = 148) were 44.9 ± 11.4 years old and 72.3% female. BF and total sitting time showed a time effect (P < .001), where both groups improved over the 4 weeks; there were no significant differences between groups across time. BD, standing, and moving time had a significant group by time effect where the 'No Choice' group showed significant increases in BD (P < .001), standing (P = .006), and moving time (P < .001) over the 4 weeks. Augmenting a theory-based intervention with choice architecture resulted in change in some sedentary behaviours in at home office workers. Specifically, while BF increased for all participants, the 'No Choice' group exhibited greater changes for BD, standing, and moving time compared with the 'Choice' group. Overall, these changes exceeded the intervention BF and BD goals.

The use of behaviour change theories has proven to be successful in reducing the amount people sit. However, it is unknown whether getting people to choose how and when they get up from sitting is better than just telling them how and when. This study explored the difference in sitting patterns across two groups: those that got to choose how and when to break up their sitting and those that did not get to choose. The study measured how often participants took breaks from sitting, how long the breaks were, as well as total sitting, standing, and moving time in Canadian home-based office workers. These measures were taken at baseline and 4 weeks later. The study aimed to achieve sitting breaks every 30­45 min with those breaks being to 2­3 min. One hundred and forty-eight participants were enrolled (average age = 44.9; 72.3% female). All participants took breaks more frequently and decreased their total time spent sitting over the 4-week period regardless of group assignment. Though, participants in the 'No Choice' group increased the length of their breaks from sitting and the total time they stood and moved over the study period. Overall, sitting break changes exceeded the intervention break duration goals.

Validity of the occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire (OSPAQ) for home-based office workers during the COVID-19 global pandemic: A secondary analysis.

High levels of occupational sitting is an emerging health concern. As working from home has become a common practice as a result of COVID-19, it is imperative to validate an appropriate self-report measure to assess sitting in this setting. This secondary analysis study aimed to validate the occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire (OSPAQ) against an activPAL4™ in full-time home-based 'office' workers (n = 148; mean age = 44.90). Participants completed a modified version of the OSPAQ and wore an activPAL4™ for a full work week. The findings suggest that the modified OSPAQ has fair levels of validity in terms of correlation for sitting and standing (ρ = 0.35-0.43, all p < 0.05) and agreement (bias = 2-12%) at the group level; however, estimates were poor at an individual level, as suggested by wide limits of agreement (±22-30%). Overall, the OSPAQ showed to be an easily administered and valid questionnaire to measure group level sitting and standing in this sample of adults.