Blathin Casey1, Susan Coote2, Sara Hayes2, Stephen Gallagher3. 1. School of Allied Health, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland. Electronic address: blathin.casey@ul.ie. 2. School of Allied Health, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland. 3. Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To (1) systematically review the literature on behavioral interventions for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) that aim to change physical activity (PA) behavior; and (2) explore whether these interventions are clinically effective in improving PA, are theory based, and use established behavior change techniques (BCTs). DATA SOURCES: A systematic electronic search was conducted on databases EBSCO (including AMED, Biomedical Reference Collection: Expanded, CINHAL, MEDLINE, PsycArticles, PsycInfo), PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from April 2017 to May 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if (1) the interventions aimed to change PA behavior among people with MS; (2) PA was recognized as a primary outcome measure; and (3) they had a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. DATA EXTRACTION: The resulting behavioral interventions were coded using the Theory Coding Scheme and the CALO-RE taxonomy to assess theory base and BCTs. A meta-analysis was conducted to assess effectiveness. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fourteen RCTs were included. Combined, there was a significant (P=.0003; d=1.00; 95% confidence interval, .46-1.53) short-term change in self-report PA behavior for studies with nonactive control groups. There was no change in objective or long-term PA. Studies failed to discuss results in relation to theory and did not attempt to refine theory. Fifty percent of BCTs within the CALO-RE were used, with BCTs of "goal-setting" and "action-planning" being the most frequently used. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence supports the efficacy of PA intervention on subjective but not objective outcomes. However, conclusions from this review should be interpreted with caution because of the small number of studies included and small sample size. Further, while using theory in intervention design, interventions in this review have not reported the refining of theory. Exploration of the use of additional BCTs to change PA behavior is also required within future interventions.
OBJECTIVES: To (1) systematically review the literature on behavioral interventions for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) that aim to change physical activity (PA) behavior; and (2) explore whether these interventions are clinically effective in improving PA, are theory based, and use established behavior change techniques (BCTs). DATA SOURCES: A systematic electronic search was conducted on databases EBSCO (including AMED, Biomedical Reference Collection: Expanded, CINHAL, MEDLINE, PsycArticles, PsycInfo), PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from April 2017 to May 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if (1) the interventions aimed to change PA behavior among people with MS; (2) PA was recognized as a primary outcome measure; and (3) they had a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. DATA EXTRACTION: The resulting behavioral interventions were coded using the Theory Coding Scheme and the CALO-RE taxonomy to assess theory base and BCTs. A meta-analysis was conducted to assess effectiveness. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fourteen RCTs were included. Combined, there was a significant (P=.0003; d=1.00; 95% confidence interval, .46-1.53) short-term change in self-report PA behavior for studies with nonactive control groups. There was no change in objective or long-term PA. Studies failed to discuss results in relation to theory and did not attempt to refine theory. Fifty percent of BCTs within the CALO-RE were used, with BCTs of "goal-setting" and "action-planning" being the most frequently used. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence supports the efficacy of PA intervention on subjective but not objective outcomes. However, conclusions from this review should be interpreted with caution because of the small number of studies included and small sample size. Further, while using theory in intervention design, interventions in this review have not reported the refining of theory. Exploration of the use of additional BCTs to change PA behavior is also required within future interventions.
Authors: Stephanie L Silveira; Trinh Huynh; Ariel Kidwell; Dena Sadeghi-Bahmani; Robert W Motl Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 4.060
Authors: Rosalind Kalb; Theodore R Brown; Susan Coote; Kathleen Costello; Ulrik Dalgas; Eric Garmon; Barbara Giesser; June Halper; Herb Karpatkin; Jennifer Keller; Alexander V Ng; Lara A Pilutti; Amanda Rohrig; Paul Van Asch; Kathleen Zackowski; Robert W Motl Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Deirdre Timlin; Jacqueline M McCormack; Maeve Kerr; Laura Keaver; Ellen E A Simpson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-12-03 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Thomas Edwards; Anne Sophie Michelsen; Afolasade O Fakolade; Ulrik Dalgas; Lara A Pilutti Journal: J Sport Health Sci Date: 2021-07-27 Impact factor: 13.077