Awareness of a disconnect between the value assigned to health and the effort devoted to health increases the intention to become more physically active.

Background: Intrinsic values and priorities influence decision-making and are, therefore, important to consider explicitly in intervention development. Although health is generally considered an important value, individuals often make unhealthy choices, indicating a values disconnect. Study aim: To investigate how becoming aware of a disconnect between the value assigned to health and the effort devoted to health is related to intentions and commitment for behavioural change and physical activity among inactive adults. Methods: We performed a secondary exploratory analysis on previously collected data. The intervention included a values exercise based on the Disconnected Values Model (DVM) that made disconnected values explicit to participants in two study arms. We compared participants with a disconnect (n = 138) with participants without a disconnect (n = 101) regarding intentions and commitment for behavioural change and physical activity and sitting time 2-4 weeks follow-up. Logistic and linear regression analyses were performed to analyse the data. Results: Between-group differences were found for the intention to devote more effort to health (OR = 3.75; 95%CI: 2.05; 6.86) and for the intention to become more physically active (OR = 2.21; 95%CI: 1.10; 4.46), indicating that significantly more participants with a disconnect were motivated to change, compared to participants without a disconnect. No between-group differences were found for commitment, intention strength, follow-up physical activity and sitting time. Conclusion: Making explicit a disconnect regarding health in an active choice intervention was associated with intentions to become more physically active. Still, it did not translate in significant behaviour change at 2-4 weeks follow-up. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04973813. Retrospectively registered. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04973813..

Promoting an active choice among physically inactive adults: a randomised web-based four-arm experiment.

BACKGROUND: Promoting active (i.e., conscious, autonomous, informed, and value-congruent) choices may improve the effectiveness of physical activity interventions. This web-based four-arm experimental study investigated the effect of promoting an active versus passive choice regarding physical activity on behavioural and psychological outcomes (e.g., physical activity intentions and behaviours, autonomy, commitment) among physically inactive adults. METHODS: Dutch inactive adults were randomized into four groups: physical activity guideline only (control group G), guideline & information (GI), guideline & active choice (GA), or guideline & active choice & action planning (GA +). GA and GA + participants were stimulated to make an active choice by weighing advantages and disadvantages of physical activity, considering personal values, and identifying barriers. GA + participants additionally completed action/coping planning exercises. Passive choice groups G and GI did not receive exercises. Self-reported behavioural outcomes were assessed by a questionnaire pre-intervention (T0, n = 564) and at 2-4 weeks follow-up (T2, n = 493). Psychological outcomes were assessed post-intervention (T1, n = 564) and at follow-up. Regression analyses compared the outcomes of groups GI, GA and GA + with group G. We also conducted sensitivity analyses and a process evaluation. RESULTS: Although promoting an active choice process (i.e., interventions GA and GA +) did not improve intention (T1) or physical activity (T2 versus T0), GA + participants reported higher commitment at T1 (ß = 0.44;95%CI:0.04;0.84) and more frequently perceived an increase in physical activity between T0 and T2 (ß = 2.61;95%CI:1.44;7.72). GA participants also made a more active choice at T1 (ß = 0.16;95%CI:0.04;0.27). The GA and GA + intervention did not significantly increase the remaining outcomes. GI participants reported higher intention strength (ß = 0.64;95%CI:0.15;1.12), autonomy (ß = 0.50;95%CI:0.05;0.95), and commitment (ß = 0.39;95%CI:0.04;0.74), and made a more active choice at T1 (ß = 0.13;95%CI:0.02;0.24). Interestingly, gender and health condition modified the effect on several outcomes. The GA + intervention was somewhat more effective in women. The process evaluation showed that participants varied in how they perceived the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: There is no convincing evidence of a beneficial effect of an active versus passive choice intervention on physical activity intentions and behaviours among inactive adults. Further research should determine whether and how active choice interventions that are gender-sensitized and consider health conditions can effectively increase physical activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04973813 . Retrospectively registered.

Office workers' perspectives on physical activity and sedentary behaviour: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Office workers spend a significant part of their workday sitting. Interventions that aim to reduce sedentary behaviour and increase physical activity might be more effective if greater attention is paid to individual perspectives that influence behavioural choices, including beliefs and values. This study aimed to gain insight into office workers' perspectives on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. METHODS: Sixteen Dutch office workers (50% female) from different professions participated in semi-structured face-to-face interviews in March 2019. To facilitate the interviews, participants received a sensitizing booklet one week before the interview. The booklet aimed to trigger them to reflect on their physical activity and sedentary behaviour and on their values in life. All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and coded following codebook thematic analysis. RESULTS: Six themes were identified: 1) beliefs about health effects are specific regarding physical activity, but superficial regarding sedentary behaviour; 2) in addition to 'health' as a value, other values are also given priority; 3) motivations to engage in physical activity mainly stem from prioritizing the value 'health', reflected by a desire to both achieve positive short/mid-term outcomes and to prevent long-term negative outcomes; 4) attitudes towards physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour are diverse and depend on individual values and previous experiences; 5) perceived barriers depend on internal and external factors; 6) supporting factors are related to support and information in the social and physical environment. CONCLUSIONS: The great value that office workers attach to health is reflected in their motivations and attitudes regarding physical activity. Increasing office workers' knowledge of the health risks of prolonged sitting may therefore increase their motivation to sit less. Although 'health' is considered important, other values, including social and work-related values, are sometimes prioritized. We conclude that interventions that aim to reduce sedentary behaviour and increase physical activity among office workers could be improved by informing about health effects of sedentary behaviour and short/mid-term benefits of physical activity, including mental health benefits. Moreover, interventions could frame physical activity as congruent with values and support value-congruent choices. Finally, the work environment could support physical activity and interruption of sedentary behaviour.

Smoking Cessation in Lower Socioeconomic Groups: Adaptation and Pilot Test of a Rolling Group Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic inequalities in smoking rates persist and tend to increase, as evidence-based smoking cessation programs are insufficiently accessible and appropriate for lower socioeconomic status (SES) smokers to achieve long-term abstinence. Our study is aimed at systematically adapting and pilot testing a smoking cessation intervention for this specific target group. METHODS: First, we conducted a needs assessment, including a literature review and interviews with lower SES smokers and professional stakeholders. Next, we selected candidate interventions for adaptation and decided which components needed to be adopted, adapted, or newly developed. We used Intervention Mapping to select effective methods and practical strategies and to build a coherent smoking cessation program. Finally, we pilot tested the adapted intervention to assess its potential effectiveness and its acceptability for lower SES smokers. RESULTS: The core of the adapted rolling group intervention was the evidence-based combination of behavioral support and pharmacotherapy. The intervention offered both group and individual support. It was open to smokers, smokers who had quit, and quitters who had relapsed. The professional-led group meetings had a fixed structure. Themes addressed included quitting-related coping skills and health-related and poverty-related issues. Methods applied were role modeling, practical learning, reinforcement, and positive feedback. In the pilot test, half of the 22 lower SES smokers successfully quit smoking. The intervention allowed them to "quit at their own pace" and to continue despite a possible relapse. Participants appraised the opportunities for social comparison and role modeling and the encouraging atmosphere. The trainers were appreciated for their competencies and personal feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Our adapted rolling group intervention for lower SES smokers was potentially effective as well as feasible, suitable, and acceptable for the target group. Further research should determine the intervention's effectiveness. Our detailed report about the adaptation process and resulting intervention may help reveal the mechanisms through which such interventions might operate effectively.

Choice architecture interventions to change physical activity and sedentary behavior: a systematic review of effects on intention, behavior and health outcomes during and after intervention.

BACKGROUND: Choice architecture interventions, which subtly change the environment in which individuals make decisions, can be used to promote behavior change. This systematic review aimed to summarize studies on micro-environmental choice architecture interventions that encouraged physical activity or discouraged sedentary behavior in adults, and to describe the effectiveness of those interventions on these behaviors - and on related intentions or health outcomes - in presence of the intervention and after removal of the intervention (i.e. post-intervention, regardless of the time elapsed). METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library for (quasi) experimental studies published up to December 2019 that evaluated the effect of choice architecture interventions on physical activity and sedentary behavior, as well as on intentions and health outcomes related to physical activity/sedentary behavior. Studies that combined choice architecture techniques with other behavior change techniques were excluded. All studies were screened for eligibility, relevant data was extracted and two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality using the QualSyst tool. RESULTS: Of the 9609 records initially identified, 88 studies met our eligibility criteria. Most studies (n = 70) were of high methodologic quality. Eighty-six studies targeted physical activity, predominantly stair use, whereas two studies targeted sedentary behavior, and one targeted both behaviors. Intervention techniques identified were prompting (n = 53), message framing (n = 24), social comparison (n = 12), feedback (n = 8), default change (n = 1) and anchoring (n = 1). In presence of the intervention, 68% of the studies reported an effect of choice architecture on behavior, whereas after removal of the intervention only 47% of the studies reported a significant effect. For all choice architecture techniques identified, except for message framing, the majority of studies reported a significant effect on behavioral intentions or behavior in presence of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that prompting can effectively encourage stair use in adults, especially in presence of a prompt. The effectiveness of the choice architecture techniques social influence, feedback, default change and anchoring cannot be assessed based on this review. More (controlled) studies are needed to assess the (sustained) effectiveness of choice architecture interventions on sedentary behavior and other types of physical activity than stair use.

Understanding the multitude of barriers that prevent smokers in lower socioeconomic groups from accessing smoking cessation support: A literature review.

One explanation for the increasing smoking-related health inequalities is the limited access of lower socioeconomic status (SES) smokers to smoking cessation support. In order to understand this limited access - and to eventually improve accessibility - we provide a structured overview of the barriers that lower SES smokers face in the successive phases of access to cessation support. Our literature review included 43 papers on barriers of access to cessation support for lower SES smokers, published before June 2016. We used the access to health care framework to categorize the extracted barriers into (a) either the abilities of smokers or dimensions of cessation support and (b) one of the successive phases of access to support. We found that lower SES smokers encounter many barriers. They are present in all phases of access to cessation support, and different barriers may be important in each of these phases. We also found that each phase transition is hampered by barriers related to both the abilities of smokers and the dimensions of cessation support, and that these barriers tend to interact, both with each other and with the disadvantaged living conditions of lower SES smokers. In conclusion, reducing smoking-related health inequalities by improving lower SES smokers' access to smoking cessation support requires a comprehensive approach. Our structured overview of barriers may serve as a starting point for tailoring such an approach to the multitude of barriers that prevent lower SES smokers from accessing cessation support, while simultaneously taking into account their disadvantaged living conditions.