Simone Krebs1,2, Anke Baaken3, Ramona Wurst1, Wiebke Goehner4, Reinhard Fuchs1. 1. University of Freiburg, Germany. 2. Schaeffler Technologies AG und Co. KG, Germany. 3. Zentrum Beruf + Gesundheit, Germany. 4. Catholic University of Applied Sciences, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study investigates whether a worksite physical activity (PA) promotion program consisting of both a "practical" PA component and a "theoretical" (psychological) coaching component (PA+C) is more effective than the same "practical" PA component alone. METHODS: N = 213 employees were assigned to two groups by cluster-randomisation: one group received the "MoVo-work" program including a PA component and a coaching component (PA+C group). The other group received only the PA component (PA group). Assessment of PA and health was conducted at five time points. RESULTS: Six weeks after program completion the percentage of physically active participants was significantly higher in the PA+C group compared to the PA group (68% vs. 45%; p = .01). At 12-month follow-up, the PA+C group showed a higher percentage of physically active participants and a better health status than the PA group on the descriptive level, but these differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that a PA promotion program including a psychological coaching component is more effective in evoking behavior change than a practical PA program alone. However, booster interventions are required to maintain the additional effects.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This study investigates whether a worksite physical activity (PA) promotion program consisting of both a "practical" PA component and a "theoretical" (psychological) coaching component (PA+C) is more effective than the same "practical" PA component alone. METHODS: N = 213 employees were assigned to two groups by cluster-randomisation: one group received the "MoVo-work" program including a PA component and a coaching component (PA+C group). The other group received only the PA component (PA group). Assessment of PA and health was conducted at five time points. RESULTS: Six weeks after program completion the percentage of physically active participants was significantly higher in the PA+C group compared to the PA group (68% vs. 45%; p = .01). At 12-month follow-up, the PA+C group showed a higher percentage of physically active participants and a better health status than the PA group on the descriptive level, but these differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that a PA promotion program including a psychological coaching component is more effective in evoking behavior change than a practical PA program alone. However, booster interventions are required to maintain the additional effects.
Authors: Sanjeev Nanda; Ryan T Hurt; Ivana T Croghan; Manpreet S Mundi; Sarah L Gifford; Darrell R Schroeder; Karen M Fischer; Sara L Bonnes Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes Date: 2019-10-16