Nick Meader1, Kristelle King1, Kath Wright1, Hilary M Graham2, Mark Petticrew3, Chris Power4, Martin White5, Amanda J Sowden6. 1. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Social and Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom. 4. Population, Policy, and Practice, UCL Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom. 5. UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 6. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, United Kingdom. Electronic address: amanda.sowden@york.ac.uk.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Multiple risk behaviors are common and associated with developing chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, or Type 2 diabetes. A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of the effectiveness of multiple risk behavior interventions was conducted. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Six electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched to August 2016. RCTs of non-pharmacologic interventions in general adult populations were selected. Studies targeting specific at-risk groups (such as people screened for cardiovascular risk factors or obesity) were excluded. Studies were screened independently. Study characteristics and outcomes were extracted and risk of bias assessed by one researcher and checked by another. The Behaviour Change Wheel and Oxford Implementation Index were used to code intervention content and context. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Sixty-nine trials involving 73,873 individuals were included. Interventions mainly comprised education and skills training and were associated with modest improvements in most risk behaviors: increased fruit and vegetable intake (0.31 portions, 95% CI=0.17, 0.45) and physical activity (standardized mean difference, 0.25; 95% CI=0.13, 0.38), and reduced fat intake (standardized mean difference, -0.24; 95% CI=-0.36, -0.12). Although reductions in smoking were found (OR=0.78, 95% CI=0.68, 0.90), they appeared to be negatively associated with improvement in other behaviors (such as diet and physical activity). Preliminary evidence suggests that sequentially changing smoking alongside other risk behaviors was more effective than simultaneous change. But most studies assessed simultaneous rather than sequential change in risk behaviors; therefore, comparisons are sparse. Follow-up period and intervention characteristics impacted effectiveness for some outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions comprising education (e.g., providing information about behaviors associated with health risks) and skills training (e.g., teaching skills that equip participants to engage in less risky behavior) and targeting multiple risk behaviors concurrently are associated with small changes in diet and physical activity. Although on average smoking was reduced, it appeared changes in smoking were negatively associated with changes in other behaviors, suggesting it may not be optimal to target smoking simultaneously with other risk behaviors.
CONTEXT: Multiple risk behaviors are common and associated with developing chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, or Type 2 diabetes. A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of the effectiveness of multiple risk behavior interventions was conducted. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Six electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched to August 2016. RCTs of non-pharmacologic interventions in general adult populations were selected. Studies targeting specific at-risk groups (such as people screened for cardiovascular risk factors or obesity) were excluded. Studies were screened independently. Study characteristics and outcomes were extracted and risk of bias assessed by one researcher and checked by another. The Behaviour Change Wheel and Oxford Implementation Index were used to code intervention content and context. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Sixty-nine trials involving 73,873 individuals were included. Interventions mainly comprised education and skills training and were associated with modest improvements in most risk behaviors: increased fruit and vegetable intake (0.31 portions, 95% CI=0.17, 0.45) and physical activity (standardized mean difference, 0.25; 95% CI=0.13, 0.38), and reduced fat intake (standardized mean difference, -0.24; 95% CI=-0.36, -0.12). Although reductions in smoking were found (OR=0.78, 95% CI=0.68, 0.90), they appeared to be negatively associated with improvement in other behaviors (such as diet and physical activity). Preliminary evidence suggests that sequentially changing smoking alongside other risk behaviors was more effective than simultaneous change. But most studies assessed simultaneous rather than sequential change in risk behaviors; therefore, comparisons are sparse. Follow-up period and intervention characteristics impacted effectiveness for some outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions comprising education (e.g., providing information about behaviors associated with health risks) and skills training (e.g., teaching skills that equip participants to engage in less risky behavior) and targeting multiple risk behaviors concurrently are associated with small changes in diet and physical activity. Although on average smoking was reduced, it appeared changes in smoking were negatively associated with changes in other behaviors, suggesting it may not be optimal to target smoking simultaneously with other risk behaviors.
Authors: Matthew E Allen; Taya Irizarry; Julian Einhorn; Thomas W Kamarck; Brian P Suffoletto; Lora E Burke; Bruce L Rollman; Matthew F Muldoon Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2019-06-17
Authors: Edurne Zabaleta-Del-Olmo; Marc Casajuana-Closas; Tomàs López-Jiménez; Haizea Pombo; Mariona Pons-Vigués; Enriqueta Pujol-Ribera; Carmen Cabezas-Peña; Joan Llobera; Ruth Martí-Lluch; Caterina Vicens; Emma Motrico; Irene Gómez-Gómez; José-Ángel Maderuelo-Fernández; José I Recio-Rodriguez; Barbara Masluk; Sara Contreras-Martos; Constanza Jacques-Aviñó; Ignacio Aznar-Lou; Montserrat Gil-Girbau; Ana Clavería; Rosa Magallón-Botaya; Juan-Ángel Bellón; Rafel Ramos; Alvaro Sanchez-Perez; Patricia Moreno-Peral; Alfonso Leiva; Clara González-Formoso; Bonaventura Bolíbar Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-12-04 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Francisco Represas-Carrera; Sabela Couso-Viana; Fátima Méndez-López; Bárbara Masluk; Rosa Magallón-Botaya; Jose I Recio-Rodríguez; Haizea Pombo; Alfonso Leiva-Rus; Montserrat Gil-Girbau; Emma Motrico; Ruth Martí-Lluch; Francisco Gude; Ana Clavería Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Marcus Bendtsen; Anna Seiterö; Preben Bendtsen; Hanna Henriksson; Pontus Henriksson; Kristin Thomas; Marie Löf; Ulrika Müssener Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 3.295