RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Adolescents are not meeting the recommended guidelines for physical activity. Social support and self-regulatory skills are two factors known to impact physical activity and sedentary behaviour. The study sought to examine how targeting feedback as part of a self-regulatory process could increase physical activity, and the individual who should be providing the feedback. DESIGN: The study utilised an aggregated N-of-1 RCT which allows for an iterative process of intervention development, and examines variability within participants to answer the question for whom did the intervention work. Ten adolescents (ages 13-18) set a daily physical activity goal. Adolescents received a SMS text message providing feedback on goal attainment daily from a parent, peer, behavioural health specialist; or no text message (control). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A bioharness heart rate monitor assessed heart rate as proxy for goal attainment. Adolescents also self-monitored their physical activity in the Calorie Counter and Diet Tracker by MyFitnessPalTM app (commercially available). RESULTS: Intervention demonstrated a significant effect for 30% of the sample in increasing MVPA (Mincrease = 52 min), with no significant effect on sedentary behaviour. CONCLUSION: A single occasion of text messaging from the right person can produce changes, however, careful consideration should be given to who provides the feedback.
Assuntos
Exercício Físico/psicologia , Retroalimentação Psicológica , Objetivos , Promoção da Saúde/métodos , Envio de Mensagens de Texto/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Relações Pais-Filho , Influência dos Pares , Relações Profissional-Paciente , Avaliação de Programas e Projetos de Saúde , Comportamento Sedentário , Autocontrole/psicologiaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether self-efficacy buffers the deleterious consequences of diabetes-specific family conflict on self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in youth with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). METHODS: A total of 129 youth with T1DM (aged 10-16 years) completed measures of diabetes-specific family conflict and self-efficacy for diabetes management, and their blood glucose meter data and HbA1c were extracted from the electronic medical record. We preformed moderation analyses to examine whether self-efficacy moderated the association that diabetes-specific family conflict had with SMBG and HbA1c. We used simple slopes analyses to probe significant interactions. RESULTS: Our results indicated that self-efficacy moderated the association that diabetes-specific family conflict had with SMBG and HbA1c. The pattern of these findings showed that high self-efficacy buffered the negative impact of diabetes conflict on HbA1c. However, benefits of high self-efficacy for more frequent SMBG was only apparent in the context of low diabetes-specific family conflict. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings highlight the interactive relationship between diabetes-specific family conflict and self-efficacy in relation to SMBG and glycemic control. These findings suggest that family functioning and youth's self-efficacy are promising intervention targets for families having trouble with SMBG and HbA1c.