| Literature DB >> 19327141 |
Tanis Liebreich1, Ronald C Plotnikoff, Kerry S Courneya, Normand Boulé.
Abstract
BACKGROUND -: This pilot study evaluated the feasibility (recruitment, retention, adherence and satisfaction) and preliminary efficacy of a 12-week website and email-linked counselling intervention on physical activity behaviour change in individuals with type 2 diabetes. METHODS -: A total of 49 individuals with type 2 diabetes (59% female, average age 54.1 years) were randomized to the Diabetes NetPLAY intervention or control condition. The intervention condition received information grounded in the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), personalized weekly emails, an on-line logbook and message board. Key outcomes included physical activity behaviour and related cognition changes. The control condition was provided links to the Canadian Diabetes Association's Clinical Practice Guidelines for Physical Activity and Canada's Guide to Physical Activity. RESULTS -: Intervention participants indicated high levels of satisfaction for this mode of delivery and study results demonstrated the feasibility of web-based mediums for the delivery of physical activity information in this population. The intervention group demonstrated a significant improvement in total vigorous and moderate minutes of physical activity (p = 0.05) compared to the control group over the 12-week study. Among the SCT variables, behavioural capacity, showed a significant increase (p < 0.001) among intervention participants. CONCLUSION -: Web-based interventions for individuals with type 2 diabetes are feasible and show promise for improving positive physical activity outcomes.Entities:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19327141 PMCID: PMC2669045 DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-6-18
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act ISSN: 1479-5868 Impact factor: 6.457
Figure 1Study Flow Diagram.
Baseline socio-demographic and behavioural characteristics of study participants
| Current Age | 54.5 (10.8) | 53.7 (9.8) | -0.3 | 0.805 |
| Age when diagnosed | 47.5 (11.0) | 46.5 (10.0) | -0.3 | 0.746 |
| Time (in months) living with diabetes | 86.6 (90.8) | 86.9 (100.8) | 0.0 | 0.992 |
| BMI | 31.1 (5.6) | 36.6 (9.1) | 2.5 | |
| MET Minutes (per/wk) | 501 (582.0) | 483 (620.0) | -0.1 | 0.987 |
| Unweighted Minutes (per/wk) | 111 (123.0) | 105 (140.0) | -0.2 | 0.769 |
| RT minutes (per/wk) | 8 (23.0) | 32 (62.0) | 1.3 | 0.080 |
| Disability | 2.2 (1.5) | 2.8 (1.9) | 1.1 | 0.261 |
| χ2 | ||||
| Marital Status | ||||
| Partner | 20 (83.3%) | 13 (52.0%) | 4.14 | |
| No Partner | 4 (16.7%) | 12 (48.0%) | ||
| Residence | ||||
| City | 20 (83.3%) | 16 (64.0%) | 1.46 | 0.23 |
| Not city | 4 (16.7%) | 9 (36.0%) | ||
| Education | ||||
| No degree completed | 5 (21.7%) | 9 (36.0%) | 0.59 | 0.44 |
| Degree completed | 18 (78.3%) | 16 (36.0%) | ||
| Gross Family Income | ||||
| < $20,000–$59,000 | 7 (30.4%) | 12 (48.0%) | 0.90 | 0.34 |
| $60,000 – < $100,000 | 16 (69.6%) | 13 (52.0%) | ||
| Employment status | ||||
| Not employed | 7 (29.2%) | 9 (37.5%) | 0.09 | 0.76 |
| Employed | 17 (70.8%) | 15 (62.5%) | ||
| Computer usage | ||||
| Less than once/week | 10 (66.7%) | 5 (33.3%) | 0.60 | 0.44 |
| More than once/week | 9 (47.4%) | 10 (52.6%) | ||
| Computer usage | ||||
| Less than 20 hrs/month | 18 (64.3%) | 10 (35.7%) | 4.78 | |
| More than 20 hrs/month | 6 (28.6%) | 15 (71.4%) | ||
Baseline social cognitive variables – between groups
| self-efficacy | 0.94 (12) | 3.0 (0.7) | 3.0 (0.7) | -0.1 | 0.947 |
| outcome expectations | 0.97 (17) | 4.6 (0.3) | 4.5 (0.9) | -0.8 | 0.041 |
| outcome expectancies | 0.88 (17) | 2.7 (0.3) | 2.7 (0.3) | 0.2 | 0.810 |
| self regulation | 0.74 (3) | 3.9 (0.5) | 3.8 (0.5) | -0.9 | 0.392 |
| situation | 0.88 (17) | 2.1 (0.5) | 2.4 (0.7) | 1.7 | 0.120 |
| reinforcement | 0.78 (4) | 2.5 (0.8) | 2.7 (0.7) | 0.7 | 0.501 |
| social support | 0.83 (2)* | 4.5 (1.9) | 5.1 (1.5) | 1.0 | 0.350 |
| emotional coping resp. | 0.71 (6) | 2.7 (0.6) | 2.9 (0.8) | 0.8 | 0.450 |
| behavioural capacity | 0.85 (4) | 3.2 (0.9) | 3.1 (1.2) | -0.5 | 0.632 |
| environment | 0.77 (7) | 3.6 (0.9) | 3.5 (0.9) | -0.4 | 0.699 |
| observational learning | 0.29 (2)* | 3.8 (1.3) | 4.1 (0.8) | 1.0 | 0.331 |
Satisfaction with intervention program
| Website was user friendly | 4.27 (0.70) |
| Overall presentation | 4.14 (0.71) |
| Able to find way around | 4.23 (0.75) |
| Information was easy to understand | 4.45 (0.60) |
| Information was credible | 4.50 (0.60) |
| Activities were useful | 3.86 (0.94) |
| Message board was useful | 3.64 (1.03) |
| Logbook was useful | 4.23 (0.87) |
| Navigation links were easy | 4.05 (0.72) |
| I liked the personal login | 4.27 (0.63) |
| I liked being able to communicate with others | 3.41 (1.05) |
| I liked the email counselling | 4.14 (0.89) |
Physical activity behaviour (n = 47)
| MET minutes (per/wk) | 501 (582) | 490 (562) | 483 (620) | 654 (659) | 0.177 | 1.88 | 0.04 |
| adjusted for BMI | 4.37 | 0.09 | |||||
| Unweighted mod & vig (per/wk) | 111 (123) | 92 (93) | 105 (140) | 140 (138) | 4.00 | 0.08 | |
| adjusted for BMI | 7.33 | 0.15 | |||||
| RT minutes (per/wk) | 8 (23) | 15 (25) | 32 (62) | 26 (56) | 0.064 | 3.60 | 0.07 |
| adjusted for BMI | 0.061 | 3.70 | 0.08 | ||||
* Two individuals did not complete baseline Godin measures, therefore, not allowing the last observation to be carried forward technique to be employed. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Vig = vigorous; Mod = moderate
Change Scores (n = 47)
| Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||
| MET.minutes (per/wk) | 164 (97) | -83.12 | 436.87 | 1.37 | 0.177 | 0.04 |
| adjusted for BMI | 168 (85) | 9.66 | 553.18 | 2.09 | 0.09 | |
| unweighted mod. & vig mins (per/wk) | 47 (45) | -0.370 | 102.00 | 2.00 | 0.10 | |
| adjusted for BMI | 50 (44) | 18.27 | 125.22 | 2.71 | 0.15 | |
Social cognitive variables (n = 49)
| Self-efficacy | 3.01 (0.71) | 2.82 (0.84) | 3.00 (0.74) | 2.99 (0.84) | 0.311 | 1.05 | 0.02 |
| Outcome expectations | 4.62 (0.37) | 4.57 (0.42) | 4.46 (0.87) | 4.57 (0.54) | 0.763 | 0.92 | 0.00 |
| Outcome expectancies | 2.71 (0.34) | 2.65 (0.36) | 2.73 (0.29) | 2.69 (0.39) | 0.799 | 0.07 | 0.00 |
| Self-regulation | 3.94 (0.53) | 3.75 (1.05) | 3.81 (0.54) | 3.56 (0.91) | 0.550 | 0.36 | 0.00 |
| Situation | 2.11 (0.55) | 2.16 (0.59) | 2.41 (0.66) | 2.35 (0.67) | 0.406 | 0.71 | 0.02 |
| Reinforcement | 2.58 (0.84) | 2.70 (0.91) | 2.73 (0.66) | 2.83 (0.74) | 0.961 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Social support | 4.58 (1.99) | 4.27 (2.05) | 5.06 (1.52) | 4.18 (2.10) | 0.201 | 1.69 | 0.04 |
| Emotional coping resp. | 2.78 (0.67) | 2.90 (0.67) | 2.93 (0.76) | 2.90 (0.67) | 0.733 | 0.12 | 0.00 |
| Behavioural capacity | 3.25 (0.98) | 2.97 (0.98) | 3.10 (1.18) | 3.23 (1.32) | 7.63 | 0.14 | |
| Observational learning | 3.83 (1.32) | 3.31 (1.31) | 4.14 (0.78) | 3.96 (0.92) | 0.087 | 3.05 | 0.06 |