Effects of physical activity planning interventions on reducing sedentary behavior in parent-child dyads: A randomized controlled trial.

Effects of parent-child dyad interventions on behavior remain unclear. This randomized controlled trial investigated if, compared with a control condition, three types of physical activity (PA) planning interventions (individual "I-for-me," dyadic "we-for-me," and collaborative "we-for-us") would reduce sedentary behavior (SB) time in parents and their children. The study involved 247 dyads comprising parents (aged 29-66) and their children (aged 9-15), randomized into one of the three types of PA planning-intervention arms or the control condition. Mixed models were applied to analyze data from a preregistered trial (NCT02713438) with the outcome of accelerometer-measured SB time, assessed at 1-week and 36-week follow-ups. Although children's SB remained unaffected by the planning interventions, a small reduction of SB time was found among parents in the collaborative (p = .048) and individual (p = .042) planning conditions. The effects were observed at the 1-week follow-up only. While short-term reductions in parents' SB were achieved, these were not sustained long-term. PA planning interventions delivered to parent-child dyads did not substantially reduce children's SB, which may be due to young people's needs of increased independence from their parents.

Characteristics of built food environments associated with alternative protein food choices: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review contributes to the understanding of the characteristics of built food environments that may be associated with choices of alternative protein foods (APF). Using the built food environment typology proposed by Downs et al., we investigated various environmental structures (e.g., supermarkets, other retailers, farmers' markets, restaurants, schools, and online vendors) and the characteristics that may facilitate or hinder consumers' choices. For example, facilitators and barriers may refer to the physical characteristics of environmental structures, food presentation practices, the organizational strategies or policies operating in the setting, or the actions that retailers or consumers engage in while selling, serving, choosing, trying, or purchasing APF in these environmental structures. METHODS: A systematic review (PROSPERO database preregistration; no. CRD42023388700) was conducted by searching 13 databases for peer-reviewed journals focusing on the fields of economics and business, agriculture, medical sciences, and social sciences. Data searches, coding, and quality evaluations were conducted by at least 2 researchers. A total of 31 papers (36 original studies) were included. The risk of bias was evaluated with the Joanna Briggs Institute quality evaluation tool, with 24 publications presenting low risk of bias. RESULTS: The findings indicate that perceived and actual availability facilitate consumers' APF choices across a built food environment. Several barriers/facilitators were associated with APF choices in specific types of built food environments: the way food is presented in produce sections (supermarkets), consumer habits in terms of green and specialty shopping (grocery stores), and mismatches among retailer actions in regard to making APF available in one type of food environment structure (e-commerce) and consumers' preferences for APF being available in other food environment structures (supermarkets, grocery stores). The effect of a barrier/facilitator may depend on the APF type; for example, social norms regarding masculinity were a barrier affecting plant-based APF choices in restaurants, but these norms were not a barrier affecting the choice of insect-based APF in restaurants. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing barriers/facilitators identified in this review will help in developing environment-matching interventions that aim to make alternative proteins mainstream. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO database registration: #CRD42023388700.

Physical activity planning interventions, body fat and energy-dense food intake in dyads: ripple, spillover, or compensatory effects?

OBJECTIVES: It is unclear if planning to change one behavior may prompt changes in other health behaviors or health outcomes. This study tested if physical activity (PA) planning interventions may result in (i) a body fat reduction in target persons and their dyadic partners (a ripple effect), (ii) a decrease in energy-dense food intake (a spillover effect), or an increase in energy-dense food intake (a compensatory effect). METHOD: N = 320 adult-adult dyads were assigned to an individual ('I-for-me'), dyadic ('we-for-me'), or collaborative ('we-for-us') PA planning intervention or a control condition. Body fat and energy-dense food intake were measured at baseline and at the 36-week follow-up. RESULTS: No Time x Condition effects were found for target persons' body fat. There was a reduction in body fat among partners participating in any PA planning intervention, compared to the control condition. Across conditions, target persons and partners reduced energy-dense food intake over time. The reduction was smaller among target persons assigned to the individual PA planning condition compared to the control condition. CONCLUSIONS: PA planning interventions delivered to dyads may result in a ripple effect involving body fat reduction among partners. Among target persons, the individual PA planning may activate compensatory changes in energy-dense food intake.

Handwashing adherence during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal study based on protection motivation theory.

RATIONALE: The associations between the number of COVID-19 cases/deaths and subsequent uptake of protective behaviors may reflect cognitive and behavioral responses to threat-relevant information. OBJECTIVE: Applying protection motivation theory (PMT), this study explored whether the number of total COVID-19 cases/deaths and general anxiety were associated with cross-situational handwashing adherence and whether these associations were mediated by PMT-specific self-regulatory cognitions (threat appraisal: perceived vulnerability, perceived illness severity; coping appraisal: self-efficacy, response efficacy, response costs). METHOD: The study (#NCT04367337) was conducted in March-September 2020 among 1256 adults residing in 14 countries. Self-reports on baseline general anxiety levels, handwashing adherence across 12 situations, and PMT-related constructs were collected using an online survey at two points in time, four weeks apart. Values of COVID-19 cases and deaths were retrieved twice for each country (one week prior to the individual data collection). RESULTS: Across countries and time, levels of adherence to handwashing guidelines were high. Path analysis indicated that smaller numbers of COVID-19 cases/deaths (Time 0; T0) were related to stronger self-efficacy (T1), which in turn was associated with higher handwashing adherence (T3). Lower general anxiety (T1) was related to better adherence (T3), with this effect mediated by higher response efficacy (T1, T3) and lower response cost (T3). However, higher general anxiety (T1) was related to better adherence via higher illness severity (T1, T3). General anxiety was unrelated to COVID-19 indicators. CONCLUSIONS: We found a complex pattern of associations between the numbers of COVID-19 cases/deaths, general anxiety, PMT variables, and handwashing adherence at the early stages of the pandemic. Higher general anxiety may enable threat appraisal (perceived illness severity), but it may hinder coping appraisal (response efficacy and response costs). The indicators of the trajectory of the pandemic (i.e., the smaller number of COVID-19 cases) may be indirectly associated with higher handwashing adherence via stronger self-efficacy.

The Dyadic Interplay Between Relationship Satisfaction, Perceived Positive and Negative Social Control, and a Reduction of Sedentary Behavior Time.

BACKGROUND: Both the close relationship processes and health model and the dyadic health influence model posit that beliefs about the relationship (e.g., relationship satisfaction) and influence strategies (e.g., social control) serve as mediators of health behavior change. The evidence for such mediation is limited. PURPOSE: This study investigated two competing hypotheses that arise from these models: (1) perceived use of positive and negative social control (attempts to influence the partner's behaviors) predict sedentary behavior (SB) indirectly, via relationship satisfaction; or (2) relationship satisfaction predicts SB indirectly, via positive and negative social control. METHODS: Data from 320 dyads (target persons and their partners, aged 18-90 years), were analyzed using mediation models. SB time was measured with GT3X-BT accelerometers at Time 1 (T1; baseline) and Time 3 (T3; 8 months following baseline). Relationship satisfaction and social control were assessed at T1 and Time 2 (T2; 2 months following baseline). RESULTS: Higher T1 relationship satisfaction among target persons predicted target persons' reporting of higher T2 negative control from partners, which in turn predicted lower T3 SB time among target persons. Lower T1 relationship satisfaction among partners predicted target persons' reporting of higher T2 perceived negative control from partners, which predicted lower T3 SB time among target persons. On average, both members of the dyad reported moderate-to-high relationship satisfaction and low-to-moderate negative control. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to very low levels of negative control, its low-to-moderate levels may be related to beneficial behavioral effects (lower SB time) among target persons reporting moderate-to-high relationship satisfaction.

Dyadic reciprocal associations between self-efficacy and planning predict sedentary behaviour.

OBJECTIVES: There are two alternative hypotheses regarding bidirectional associations between self-efficacy and planning in predicting health behaviour change: self-efficacy may establish planning (cultivation hypothesis) or planning may enable the formation of self-efficacy (enabling hypothesis). This study investigates the order in which these two social cognitions are linked in adult-adult dyads in the context of sedentary behaviours (SB). DESIGN: A longitudinal study with 4 measurement points, spanning 8 months. METHODS: A total of 320 dyads (age: 18-90 years) were enrolled. Dyads included a focus person (who received the recommendation to reduce SB and intended to change their SB), and their partners, who were willing to support the focus persons and intended to reduce their own SB as well. Data were collected at Time 1 (T1), Time 2 (1 week later, T2), Time 3 (T3, 2 months after T1) and Time 4 (T4, 8 months after T1). SB was measured with accelerometers at (T1 and T4). Mediation models with individual and dyadic reciprocal effects were tested with path analyses. RESULTS: Only one indirect effect was found: A higher level of partners' SB reduction-specific self-efficacy at T2 was related to the focus person's more frequent planning to reduce SB at T3, which, in turn, predicted lower SB time among partners at T4. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide partial support for the cultivation model (self-efficacy prompting planning) and for dyadic reciprocal associations in the context of SB time reduction among adult dyads.

Insights into effects of individual, dyadic, and collaborative planning interventions on automatic, conscious, and social process variables.

OBJECTIVE: Going beyond the effects of individual planning ("I-for-me"), we investigate the associations of dyadic ("we-for-me") and collaborative ("we-for-us") planning with automatic, conscious, and social process variables that may elucidate the differences through which these three types of planning operate. We tested the effects of three planning interventions on: (1) habit strength, representing an automatic process, (2) the use of individual planning, representing a conscious process, (3) the use of collaborative planning, representing conscious and social processes, and (4) collaborative social control, representing a social process. METHODS: N = 320 adults were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: (1) the active control condition, (2) the individual planning condition, (3) the dyadic planning condition, or (4) the collaborative planning condition. Self-reported data on habit strength, the use of individual planning, the use of collaborative planning, and collaborative social control were assessed at baseline and at the 9-week follow-up. Analyses used linear mixed modelling. RESULTS: Compared to the control group, participants in the individual planning condition had stronger habits at the 9-week follow-up. Those in the dyadic planning condition reported higher levels of the use of collaborative planning and higher levels of collaborative social control at the follow-up. Finally, compared to those assigned to the control group, participants in the collaborative planning condition reported stronger habits, higher levels of the use of both individual and collaborative planning, and higher levels of collaborative social control at the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Individual, dyadic, and collaborative planning interventions may result in distinct patterns of changes in the variables representing automatic, conscious, and social processes. In particular, changes in automatic, conscious and social process variables, evoked by the collaborative "we-for-us" planning intervention may reflect the major regulatory effort of forming joint plans and subsequently integrating regular joint exercise into the weekly schedule.

The Interplay Between Strictness of Policies and Individuals' Self-Regulatory Efforts: Associations with Handwashing During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Patterns of protective health behaviors, such as handwashing and sanitizing during the COVID-19 pandemic, may be predicted by macro-level variables, such as regulations specified by public health policies. Health behavior patterns may also be predicted by micro-level variables, such as self-regulatory cognitions specified by health behavior models, including the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA). PURPOSE: This study explored whether strictness of containment and health policies was related to handwashing adherence and whether such associations were mediated by HAPA-specified self-regulatory cognitions. METHODS: The study (NCT04367337) was conducted among 1,256 adults from Australia, Canada, China, France, Gambia, Germany, Israel, Italy, Malaysia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, and Switzerland. Self-report data on cross-situational handwashing adherence were collected using an online survey at two time points, 4 weeks apart. Values of the index of strictness of containment and health policies, obtained from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker database, were retrieved twice for each country (1 week prior to individual data collection). RESULTS: Across countries and time, levels of handwashing adherence and strictness of policies were high. Path analysis indicated that stricter containment and health policies were indirectly related to lower handwashing adherence via lower self-efficacy and self-monitoring. Less strict policies were indirectly related to higher handwashing adherence via higher self-efficacy and self-monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: When policies are less strict, exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus might be higher, triggering more self-regulation and, consequently, more handwashing adherence. Very strict policies may need to be accompanied by enhanced information dissemination or psychosocial interventions to ensure appropriate levels of self-regulation.

The trajectory of COVID-19 pandemic and handwashing adherence: findings from 14 countries.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected people's engagement in health behaviors, especially those that protect individuals from SARS-CoV-2 transmission, such as handwashing/sanitizing. This study investigated whether adherence to the World Health Organization's (WHO) handwashing guidelines (the outcome variable) was associated with the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic, as measured by the following 6 indicators: (i) the number of new cases of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality (a country-level mean calculated for the 14 days prior to data collection), (ii) total cases of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality accumulated since the onset of the pandemic, and (iii) changes in recent cases of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality (a difference between country-level COVID-19 morbidity/mortality in the previous 14 days compared to cases recorded 14-28 days earlier). METHODS: The observational study (#NCT04367337) enrolled 6064 adults residing in Australia, Canada, China, France, Gambia, Germany, Israel, Italy, Malaysia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, and Switzerland. Data on handwashing adherence across 8 situations (indicated in the WHO guidelines) were collected via an online survey (March-July 2020). Individual-level handwashing data were matched with the date- and country-specific values of the 6 indices of the trajectory of COVID-19 pandemic, obtained from the WHO daily reports. RESULTS: Multilevel regression models indicated a negative association between both accumulation of the total cases of COVID-19 morbidity (B = -.041, SE = .013, p = .013) and mortality (B = -.036, SE = .014 p = .002) and handwashing. Higher levels of total COVID-related morbidity and mortality were related to lower handwashing adherence. However, increases in recent cases of COVID-19 morbidity (B = .014, SE = .007, p = .035) and mortality (B = .022, SE = .009, p = .015) were associated with higher levels of handwashing adherence. Analyses controlled for participants' COVID-19-related situation (their exposure to information about handwashing, being a healthcare professional), sociodemographic characteristics (gender, age, marital status), and country-level variables (strictness of containment and health policies, human development index). The models explained 14-20% of the variance in handwashing adherence. CONCLUSIONS: To better explain levels of protective behaviors such as handwashing, future research should account for indicators of the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.Gov, # NCT04367337.