AEP Imp-Intention readings 2

bethdrysdale94's version from 2017-05-31 12:20

Section 1

Question Answer
Belanger-Gravel 2013: overviewmeta-analytic review on imp-int effectiveness on PA, 26 studies included in the review. imp-int intervention on PA at post-intervention and/or follow up
Belanger-Gravel 2013: studies24 RCTs, mostly self-report, imp-intentions were either manipulated or measured by way of a questionnaire, OR by an individual or group session.
Belanger-Gravel 2013: meta-analysis of effect of interventionsoverall - small to medium positive effect at post-intervention (0.31) and follow up (0.24), with ranges from -0.2 to -.74, significant heterogeneity,
Belanger-Gravel 2013: effective imp-int in PA domainThe present sub-group analyses suggest that the most effective approach to implementation intentions in the domain of physical activity is to ensure that plans are made with reference to the management of barriers known to negatively affect the adoption and/or the maintenance of participation in physical activities. Although coping plans and self-efficacy are conceptually different, this approach would be congruent with the well known documented observation that self-efficacy has consistently been identified as one of the important determinants of participation in physical activity
Belanger-Gravel 2013: Imp-int importanceimp-int interventions ARE effective at increasing PA at post-intervention AND after no contact follow-up
Belanger-Gravel 2013: active ingredients of imp-intactive ingredients have not been identified - self-montioring, barrier identification, relapse prevention and prompting practice have all been shown to increase PA.better amongst uni students than adult pop.
Belanger-Gravel 2013: limitationspublication bias, poor measures of PA, small number of publications, none of the studies were particularly long term, which method was better?

Section 2

Question Answer
Hall 2012: overviewimp int on PA in different supportive environments. 2 groups - one in a supportive environment (warm weather, little rain) and one in a less supportive env (cold weather, rain). two groups in each study, control vs imp int
Hall 2012: detailsmeasured executive control responses, intention strength and PA at baseline and at 7 days, initially in lab, then by questionnaire
Hall 2012: resultssupportive env: more executive control response = stronger intention to behaviour relationships, less ECR = same intention to behvaiour relatoionship as control. less supportive env: more ECR = greater intention to behaviour relationship, less ECR = medium intention to behaviour relationship than control.
Hall 2012: summary Together these findings suggest that the beneficial effects of implementation intentions on intention–behavior correspondence for physical activity may be more potent under challenging environmental conditions, and that they may be of special benefit for those with initially low ECRs.

Section 3