| Literature DB >> 29679164 |
Stephen Shannon1, Deirdre Brennan2, Donncha Hanna3, Zoe Younger3, Jessica Hassan2, Gavin Breslin2,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-determination theory (SDT) has been used to predict children's physical activity and well-being. However, few school-based SDT intervention studies have been conducted, and no research exists with children of low socio-economic status (SES). Therefore, SDT-derived needs-supportive teaching techniques informed the design and analyses of the Healthy Choices Programme (HCP). The aim was to determine if the HCP could enhance moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and well-being among children of low SES through increasing autonomy-support, needs satisfaction and intrinsic motivation.Entities:
Keywords: Behaviour change; Health promotion; Motivation; Needs satisfaction; Physical education
Year: 2018 PMID: 29679164 PMCID: PMC5910444 DOI: 10.1186/s40798-018-0129-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sports Med Open ISSN: 2198-9761
Fig. 4Flow diagram describing the design and flow of participants through the Healthy Choices Programme
Fig. 1Rater proforma for student volunteers’ trial assessment of a Healthy Choices Programme session
Fig. 2Teaching needs-supportive rater proforma used in student volunteer training
Fig. 3Hypothesised model 1 (physical activity) and 2 (well-being) with three mediators specifying the one direct and seven indirect effects of X (intervention) on Y (well-being)
Descriptive statistics for each outcome measure at baseline and post-intervention
| Variables | Intervention | Control |
|---|---|---|
| Accelerometer - MVPA | ||
| Baseline | 21.06(67) 6.24 | 23.48 (51) 7.48 |
| Post | 24.91 (46) 7.48* | 19.50 (26) 8.20 |
| K-27 total | ||
| Baseline | 115.12 (76) 16.59 | 110.78 (56) 15.37 |
| Post | 118.88 (76) 15.11 | 112.40 (56) 14.51 |
| Autonomy support | ||
| Baseline | 31.02 (76) 6.03 | 28.90 (56) 6.48 |
| Post | 33.68 (76) 7.24* | 28.51 (56) 6.20 |
| Autonomy satisfaction | ||
| Baseline | 16.99 (76) 4.87 | 17.62 (56) 4.51 |
| Post | 19.14 (76) 4.03* | 17.85 (56) 4.20 |
| Competence satisfaction | ||
| Baseline | 18.27 (76) 5.25 | 18.47 (56) 4.53 |
| Post | 19.30 (76) 4.15 | 18.66 (56) 4.40 |
| Relatedness satisfaction | ||
| Baseline | 23.38 (76) 5.53 | 22.12 (56) 6.38 |
| Post | 24.59 (76) 5.68 | 22.31 (56) 6.55 |
| Total needs satisfaction | ||
| Baseline | 58.04 (76) 13.44 | 58.22 (56) 12.82 |
| Post | 63.05 (76) 11.68 | 58.82 (56) 11.58 |
| Intrinsic motivation | ||
| Baseline | 12.53 (76) 3.34 | 12.23 (56) 3.98 |
| Post | 13.47 (76) 2.85 | 13.01 (56) 2.97 |
| Identified regulation | ||
| Baseline | 11.31 (76) 3.41 | 10.81 (56) 3.17 |
| Post | 12.54 (76) 2.91 | 11.55 (56) 2.98 |
| Introjected regulation | ||
| Baseline | 8.78 (76) 3.34 | 8.88 (56) 3.58 |
| Post | 9.35 (76) 3.71 | 9.10 (56) .3.74 |
| External regulation | ||
| Baseline | 7.52 (76) 3.46 | 7.37 (56) 3.12 |
| Post | 6.80 (76) 3.56 | 6.32 (56) 2.91 |
M mean, n sample size, SD standard deviation, K-27 Kidscreen-27
*Significant interaction effect for group and time from baseline to post-intervention
Fig. 5Model 1 (MVPA) findings describing the two singular and one serial indirect effects of the intervention on MVPA
Mediation table for intervention effects
| Model: dependent variable | Treatment on dependent variable | Hypothesised mediators | Treatment on mediator | M1 on M2 and M3 | M2 on M3 | Treatment > M1 > dependent variable | Treatment > M2 > dependent variable | Treatment > M3 > dependent variable | Treatment > M1 > M2 > dependent variable | Treatment > M1 > M3 > dependent variable | Treatment > M2 > M3 > dependent variable | Treatment > M1 > M2 > M3 > dependent variable | Total sum of all the indirect effects |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Physical activity | .45 (.00***) | Autonomy-support (M1) | .17 (.04*) | n/a | n/a |
| .01 [− .015 to .087] |
| .01 [− .002 to .059] | − .00 [− .036 to .011] | .00 [− .004 to .037] |
|
|
| Needs satisfaction (M2) | .15 (.08) | .42 (.05) | n/a | ||||||||||
| Intrinsic motivation (M3) | .02 (.80) | − .01 (.70) | .04, (.12) | ||||||||||
| 2. Well-being | .07 (.42) | Autonomy-support (M1) | .17. (04*) | n/a | n/a |
| .03 [− .015 to .099] | − .00 [− .038 to .011] |
| .00 [− .002 to .009] | .00 [− .005 to .019] | .00 [− .002 to .007] |
|
| Needs satisfaction (M2) | .15 (.08) |
| n/a | ||||||||||
| Intrinsic motivation (M3) | .02 (80) | .03 (.29) [− .035 to .113] |
|
Note: Control and intervention groups were coded as 0 and 1, respectively
CI lower and upper confidence intervals, n/a non-applicable, italic type confidence intervals indicate a significance at p < .05 because the CIs do not include zero
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Fig. 6Model 2 (well-being) findings describing the one singular and one serial indirect effects of the intervention on well-being