OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects and dose-response effects of an intervention on health behavior (fat intake, physical activity, and smoking) and Body Mass Index (BMI) in a sample of highly educated adults. METHODS: Participants were randomized to a 'usual care' condition (=medical assessment) (n=106) and an intervention condition (=cardiovascular prevention program) that additionally included a website and one-on-one coaching (by e-mail, telephone, and/or face-to-face) (n=208). The participants could select their own intervention dose and delivery mode. RESULTS:Participants completed questionnaires at baseline (n=93; n=194) and 6 months post-baseline (n=84; n=168). The intervention was not more effective than 'usual care' but a higher intervention dose led to better outcomes for fat intake and physical activity, independent of baseline motivation. Furthermore, the effect of combining different delivery modes was dependent on the behavioral context. CONCLUSION: A higher intervention dose led to better results but allowing people to select their own intervention dose probably undermined the potential intervention effect. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The present study highlights the importance of intervention dose and delivery mode for the development, evaluation, and optimization of health promotion programs.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects and dose-response effects of an intervention on health behavior (fat intake, physical activity, and smoking) and Body Mass Index (BMI) in a sample of highly educated adults. METHODS:Participants were randomized to a 'usual care' condition (=medical assessment) (n=106) and an intervention condition (=cardiovascular prevention program) that additionally included a website and one-on-one coaching (by e-mail, telephone, and/or face-to-face) (n=208). The participants could select their own intervention dose and delivery mode. RESULTS:Participants completed questionnaires at baseline (n=93; n=194) and 6 months post-baseline (n=84; n=168). The intervention was not more effective than 'usual care' but a higher intervention dose led to better outcomes for fat intake and physical activity, independent of baseline motivation. Furthermore, the effect of combining different delivery modes was dependent on the behavioral context. CONCLUSION: A higher intervention dose led to better results but allowing people to select their own intervention dose probably undermined the potential intervention effect. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The present study highlights the importance of intervention dose and delivery mode for the development, evaluation, and optimization of health promotion programs.
Authors: R Jay Widmer; Nerissa M Collins; C Scott Collins; Colin P West; Lilach O Lerman; Amir Lerman Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Abigail Clifton; Caroline Burgess; Sarah Clement; Ruth Ohlsen; Pras Ramluggun; Jackie Sturt; Paul Walters; Elizabeth A Barley Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: John William Kayser; Sylvie Cossette; José Côté; Anne Bourbonnais; Margaret Purden; Martin Juneau; Jean-Francois Tanguay; Marie-Josée Simard; Jocelyn Dupuis; Jean G Diodati; Jean-Francois Tremblay; Marc-André Maheu-Cadotte; Daniel Cournoyer Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2017-04-27
Authors: Caroline Burgess; Alison J Wright; Alice S Forster; Hiten Dodhia; Jane Miller; Frances Fuller; Eric Cajeat; Martin C Gulliford Journal: Health Expect Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: R Jay Widmer; Thomas G Allison; Brendie Keane; Anthony Dallas; Kent R Bailey; Lilach O Lerman; Amir Lerman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-04-19 Impact factor: 3.240