Erica James1, Megan Freund2, Angela Booth3, Mitch J Duncan4, Natalie Johnson2, Camille E Short5, Luke Wolfenden6, Fiona G Stacey2, Frances Kay-Lambkin7, Corneel Vandelanotte8. 1. School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; Priority Research Centre in Physical Activity and Nutrition, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: erica.james@newcastle.edu.au. 2. School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia. 3. School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia. 4. School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; Priority Research Centre in Physical Activity and Nutrition, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia. 5. Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia. 6. School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia; Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia; Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, NSW, Australia. 7. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 8. Physical Activity Research Group, The Central Queensland University, North Rockhampton, QLD, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Growing evidence points to the benefits of addressing multiple health behaviors rather than single behaviors. PURPOSE: This review evaluates the relative effectiveness of simultaneous and sequentially delivered multiple health behavior change (MHBC) interventions. Secondary aims were to identify: a) the most effective spacing of sequentially delivered components; b) differences in efficacy of MHBC interventions for adoption/cessation behaviors and lifestyle/addictive behaviors, and; c) differences in trial retention between simultaneously and sequentially delivered interventions. METHODS: MHBC intervention trials published up to October 2015 were identified through a systematic search. Eligible trials were randomised controlled trials that directly compared simultaneous and sequential delivery of a MHBC intervention. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. RESULTS: Six trials met the inclusion criteria and across these trials the behaviors targeted were smoking, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption. Three trials reported a difference in intervention effect between a sequential and simultaneous approach in at least one behavioral outcome. Of these, two trials favoured a sequential approach on smoking. One trial favoured a simultaneous approach on fat intake. There was no difference in retention between sequential and simultaneous approaches. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence regarding the relative effectiveness of sequential and simultaneous approaches. Given only three of the six trials observed a difference in intervention effectiveness for one health behavior outcome, and the relatively consistent finding that the sequential and simultaneous approaches were more effective than a usual/minimal care control condition, it appears that both approaches should be considered equally efficacious. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42015027876.
BACKGROUND: Growing evidence points to the benefits of addressing multiple health behaviors rather than single behaviors. PURPOSE: This review evaluates the relative effectiveness of simultaneous and sequentially delivered multiple health behavior change (MHBC) interventions. Secondary aims were to identify: a) the most effective spacing of sequentially delivered components; b) differences in efficacy of MHBC interventions for adoption/cessation behaviors and lifestyle/addictive behaviors, and; c) differences in trial retention between simultaneously and sequentially delivered interventions. METHODS:MHBC intervention trials published up to October 2015 were identified through a systematic search. Eligible trials were randomised controlled trials that directly compared simultaneous and sequential delivery of a MHBC intervention. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. RESULTS: Six trials met the inclusion criteria and across these trials the behaviors targeted were smoking, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption. Three trials reported a difference in intervention effect between a sequential and simultaneous approach in at least one behavioral outcome. Of these, two trials favoured a sequential approach on smoking. One trial favoured a simultaneous approach on fat intake. There was no difference in retention between sequential and simultaneous approaches. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence regarding the relative effectiveness of sequential and simultaneous approaches. Given only three of the six trials observed a difference in intervention effectiveness for one health behavior outcome, and the relatively consistent finding that the sequential and simultaneous approaches were more effective than a usual/minimal care control condition, it appears that both approaches should be considered equally efficacious. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42015027876.
Authors: Taniya S Nagpal; Harry Prapavessis; Christina G Campbell; Barbra de Vrijer; Roberta Bgeginski; Karishma Hosein; Stephanie Paplinskie; Mollie Manley; Michelle F Mottola Journal: Int J Behav Med Date: 2020-02
Authors: Ashley R Grant; Bogda Koczwara; Julia N Morris; Elizabeth Eakin; Camille E Short; Lisa Beatty Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Casey Regan; Caitlin Fehily; Elizabeth Campbell; Jenny Bowman; Jack Faulkner; Christopher Oldmeadow; Kate Bartlem Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2022-06-27
Authors: Dori Pekmezi; Kevin Fontaine; Laura Q Rogers; Maria Pisu; Michelle Y Martin; Yu-Mei Schoenberger-Godwin; Robert A Oster; Kelly Kenzik; Nataliya V Ivankova; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 4.638