Action and inaction in multi-behaviour recommendations

a meta-analysis of lifestyle interventions

Dolores Albarracín, Kristina Wilson, Man pui Sally Chan, Marta Durantini, Flor Sanchez

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This meta-analysis examined theoretical predictions about the effects of different combinations of action (e.g., start an exercise regime) and of inaction (e.g., reduce screen time, rest in between weight lifting series) recommendations in smoking, diet, and physical activity multiple-domain interventions. The synthesis included 150 research reports of interventions promoting multiple behaviour domain change and measuring change at the most immediate follow-up. The main outcome measure was an indicator of overall change that combined behavioural and clinical effects. There were two main findings. First, as predicted, interventions produced the highest level of change when they included a predominance of recommendations along one behavioural dimension (i.e., predominantly inaction or predominantly action). Unexpectedly, within interventions with predominant action or inaction recommendations, those including predominantly inaction recommendations had greater efficacy than those including predominantly action recommendations. This effect, however, was limited to interventions in the diet and exercise domains, but reversed (greater efficacy for interventions with predominant action vs. inaction recommendations) in the smoking domain. These findings provide important insights on how to best combine recommendations when interventions target clusters of health behaviours.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-24
Number of pages24
JournalHealth Psychology Review
Volume12
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2 2018

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Life Style
Smoking
Weight Lifting
Diet
Health Behavior
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

Keywords

  • Multiple behaviour domain change
  • action
  • inaction
  • lifestyle intervention
  • multi-behaviour intervention
  • multi-domain intervention

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

Action and inaction in multi-behaviour recommendations : a meta-analysis of lifestyle interventions. / Albarracín, Dolores; Wilson, Kristina; Chan, Man pui Sally; Durantini, Marta; Sanchez, Flor.

In: Health Psychology Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, 02.01.2018, p. 1-24.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Albarracín, Dolores ; Wilson, Kristina ; Chan, Man pui Sally ; Durantini, Marta ; Sanchez, Flor. / Action and inaction in multi-behaviour recommendations : a meta-analysis of lifestyle interventions. In: Health Psychology Review. 2018 ; Vol. 12, No. 1. pp. 1-24.
@article{1b973449f6ba40d18c0129da9d0fa0be,
title = "Action and inaction in multi-behaviour recommendations: a meta-analysis of lifestyle interventions",
abstract = "This meta-analysis examined theoretical predictions about the effects of different combinations of action (e.g., start an exercise regime) and of inaction (e.g., reduce screen time, rest in between weight lifting series) recommendations in smoking, diet, and physical activity multiple-domain interventions. The synthesis included 150 research reports of interventions promoting multiple behaviour domain change and measuring change at the most immediate follow-up. The main outcome measure was an indicator of overall change that combined behavioural and clinical effects. There were two main findings. First, as predicted, interventions produced the highest level of change when they included a predominance of recommendations along one behavioural dimension (i.e., predominantly inaction or predominantly action). Unexpectedly, within interventions with predominant action or inaction recommendations, those including predominantly inaction recommendations had greater efficacy than those including predominantly action recommendations. This effect, however, was limited to interventions in the diet and exercise domains, but reversed (greater efficacy for interventions with predominant action vs. inaction recommendations) in the smoking domain. These findings provide important insights on how to best combine recommendations when interventions target clusters of health behaviours.",
keywords = "Multiple behaviour domain change, action, inaction, lifestyle intervention, multi-behaviour intervention, multi-domain intervention",
author = "Dolores Albarrac{\'i}n and Kristina Wilson and Chan, {Man pui Sally} and Marta Durantini and Flor Sanchez",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1080/17437199.2017.1369140",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "1--24",
journal = "Health Psychology Review",
issn = "1743-7199",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Action and inaction in multi-behaviour recommendations

T2 - a meta-analysis of lifestyle interventions

AU - Albarracín, Dolores

AU - Wilson, Kristina

AU - Chan, Man pui Sally

AU - Durantini, Marta

AU - Sanchez, Flor

PY - 2018/1/2

Y1 - 2018/1/2

N2 - This meta-analysis examined theoretical predictions about the effects of different combinations of action (e.g., start an exercise regime) and of inaction (e.g., reduce screen time, rest in between weight lifting series) recommendations in smoking, diet, and physical activity multiple-domain interventions. The synthesis included 150 research reports of interventions promoting multiple behaviour domain change and measuring change at the most immediate follow-up. The main outcome measure was an indicator of overall change that combined behavioural and clinical effects. There were two main findings. First, as predicted, interventions produced the highest level of change when they included a predominance of recommendations along one behavioural dimension (i.e., predominantly inaction or predominantly action). Unexpectedly, within interventions with predominant action or inaction recommendations, those including predominantly inaction recommendations had greater efficacy than those including predominantly action recommendations. This effect, however, was limited to interventions in the diet and exercise domains, but reversed (greater efficacy for interventions with predominant action vs. inaction recommendations) in the smoking domain. These findings provide important insights on how to best combine recommendations when interventions target clusters of health behaviours.

AB - This meta-analysis examined theoretical predictions about the effects of different combinations of action (e.g., start an exercise regime) and of inaction (e.g., reduce screen time, rest in between weight lifting series) recommendations in smoking, diet, and physical activity multiple-domain interventions. The synthesis included 150 research reports of interventions promoting multiple behaviour domain change and measuring change at the most immediate follow-up. The main outcome measure was an indicator of overall change that combined behavioural and clinical effects. There were two main findings. First, as predicted, interventions produced the highest level of change when they included a predominance of recommendations along one behavioural dimension (i.e., predominantly inaction or predominantly action). Unexpectedly, within interventions with predominant action or inaction recommendations, those including predominantly inaction recommendations had greater efficacy than those including predominantly action recommendations. This effect, however, was limited to interventions in the diet and exercise domains, but reversed (greater efficacy for interventions with predominant action vs. inaction recommendations) in the smoking domain. These findings provide important insights on how to best combine recommendations when interventions target clusters of health behaviours.

KW - Multiple behaviour domain change

KW - action

KW - inaction

KW - lifestyle intervention

KW - multi-behaviour intervention

KW - multi-domain intervention

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85029897806&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85029897806&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/17437199.2017.1369140

DO - 10.1080/17437199.2017.1369140

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 1

EP - 24

JO - Health Psychology Review

JF - Health Psychology Review

SN - 1743-7199

IS - 1

ER -