Self-regulatory behaviour change techniques in interventions to promote healthy eating, physical activity, or weight loss: a meta-review.

IF 6.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Health Psychology Review Pub Date : 2021-12-01 Epub Date: 2020-02-17 DOI:10.1080/17437199.2020.1721310
Bonnie Spring, Katrina E Champion, Rebecca Acabchuk, Emily A Hennessy
{"title":"Self-regulatory behaviour change techniques in interventions to promote healthy eating, physical activity, or weight loss: a meta-review.","authors":"Bonnie Spring, Katrina E Champion, Rebecca Acabchuk, Emily A Hennessy","doi":"10.1080/17437199.2020.1721310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Poor quality diet, physical inactivity, and obesity are prevalent, covariant risk factors for chronic disease, suggesting that behaviour change techniques (BCTs) that effectively change one risk factor might also improve the others. To examine that question, registered meta-review CRD42019128444 synthesised evidence from 30 meta-analyses published between 2007 and 2017 aggregating data from 409,185 participants to evaluate whether inclusion of 14 self-regulatory BCTs in health promotion interventions was associated with greater improvements in outcomes. Study populations and review quality varied, with minimal overlap among summarised studies. AMSTAR-2 ratings averaged 37.31% (<i>SD</i> = 16.21%; range 8.33-75%). All BCTs were examined in at least one meta-analysis; goal setting and self-monitoring were evaluated in 18 and 20 reviews, respectively. No BCT was consistently related to improved outcomes. Although results might indicate that BCTs fail to benefit diet and activity self-regulation, we suggest that a Type 3 error occurred, whereby the meta-analytic research design implemented to analyse effects of multi-component intervention trials designed for a different purpose was mismatched to the question of how BCTs affect health outcomes. An understanding of independent and interactive effects of individual BCTs on different health outcomes and populations is needed urgently to ground a cumulative science of behaviour change.</p>","PeriodicalId":48034,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Review","volume":"15 4","pages":"508-539"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7429262/pdf/nihms-1570427.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2020.1721310","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/2/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Poor quality diet, physical inactivity, and obesity are prevalent, covariant risk factors for chronic disease, suggesting that behaviour change techniques (BCTs) that effectively change one risk factor might also improve the others. To examine that question, registered meta-review CRD42019128444 synthesised evidence from 30 meta-analyses published between 2007 and 2017 aggregating data from 409,185 participants to evaluate whether inclusion of 14 self-regulatory BCTs in health promotion interventions was associated with greater improvements in outcomes. Study populations and review quality varied, with minimal overlap among summarised studies. AMSTAR-2 ratings averaged 37.31% (SD = 16.21%; range 8.33-75%). All BCTs were examined in at least one meta-analysis; goal setting and self-monitoring were evaluated in 18 and 20 reviews, respectively. No BCT was consistently related to improved outcomes. Although results might indicate that BCTs fail to benefit diet and activity self-regulation, we suggest that a Type 3 error occurred, whereby the meta-analytic research design implemented to analyse effects of multi-component intervention trials designed for a different purpose was mismatched to the question of how BCTs affect health outcomes. An understanding of independent and interactive effects of individual BCTs on different health outcomes and populations is needed urgently to ground a cumulative science of behaviour change.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
促进健康饮食、体育锻炼或减肥的干预措施中的自我调节行为改变技术:元综述。
劣质饮食、缺乏运动和肥胖是普遍存在的慢性病共变风险因素,这表明有效改变一种风险因素的行为改变技术(BCT)也可能改善其他风险因素。为了研究这个问题,注册荟萃综述CRD42019128444综合了2007年至2017年间发表的30篇荟萃分析报告中的证据,汇总了409185名参与者的数据,以评估在健康促进干预中纳入14种自我调节BCT是否与更大的结果改善相关。研究人群和综述质量各不相同,汇总研究之间的重叠极少。AMSTAR-2 评分平均为 37.31%(SD = 16.21%;范围为 8.33-75%)。至少有一项荟萃分析对所有 BCT 进行了研究;分别有 18 篇和 20 篇综述对目标设定和自我监控进行了评估。没有任何一种 BCT 与治疗效果的改善有一致的关系。尽管研究结果可能表明BCT对饮食和活动的自我调节无益,但我们认为出现了第三类错误,即为了分析为不同目的而设计的多成分干预试验的效果而实施的荟萃分析研究设计与BCT如何影响健康结果的问题不匹配。为了建立行为改变的累积性科学,我们迫切需要了解单个BCT对不同健康结果和人群的独立和交互影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Psychology Review
Health Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The publication of Health Psychology Review (HPR) marks a significant milestone in the field of health psychology, as it is the first review journal dedicated to this important and rapidly growing discipline. Edited by a highly respected team, HPR provides a critical platform for the review, development of theories, and conceptual advancements in health psychology. This prestigious international forum not only contributes to the progress of health psychology but also fosters its connection with the broader field of psychology and other related academic and professional domains. With its vital insights, HPR is a must-read for those involved in the study, teaching, and practice of health psychology, behavioral medicine, and related areas.
期刊最新文献
The prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder symptomatology and diagnosis in burn survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Yoga as an intervention for stress: a meta-analysis. Analytical decisions pose moral questions. Components of multiple health behaviour change interventions for patients with chronic conditions: a systematic review and meta-regression of randomized trials. Identifying the psychosocial barriers and facilitators associated with the uptake of genetic services for hereditary cancer syndromes: a systematic review of qualitative studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1