| Literature DB >> 33147704 |
Marlene Nunes Silva1,2,3, Cristina Godinho1,4, Marta Salavisa5, Katherine Owen6, Rute Santos1,7, Catarina Santos Silva1,3, Romeu Mendes1,8, Pedro J Teixeira1,3, Graça Freitas9, Adrian Bauman6.
Abstract
To raise perceived capability (C), opportunity (O) and motivation (M) for physical activity (PA) behaviour (B) among adults, the Portuguese Directorate-General of Health developed a mass media campaign named "Follow the Whistle", based on behaviour change theory and social marketing principles. Comprehensive formative and process evaluation suggests this media-led campaign used best-practice principles. The campaign adopted a population-wide approach, had clear behavioural goals, and clear multi-strategy implementation. We assessed campaign awareness and initial impact using pre (n = 878, 57% women) and post-campaign (n = 1319, 58% women) independent adult population samples via an online questionnaire, comprising socio-demographic factors, campaign awareness and recall, and psychosocial and behavioural measures linked to the COM-B model. PA was assessed with IPAQ and the Activity Choice Index. The post-campaign recall was typical of levels following national campaigns (24%). Post-campaign measures were higher for key theory-based targets (all p < 0.05), namely self-efficacy, perceived opportunities to be more active and intrinsic motivation. The impact on social norms and self-efficacy was moderated by campaign awareness. Concerning PA, effects were found for vigorous activity (p < 0.01), but not for incidental activity. Overall the campaign impacted key theory-based intermediate outcomes, but did not influence incidental activity, which highlights the need for sustained and repeated campaign efforts.Entities:
Keywords: evaluation; healthy lifestyles; mass media campaign; physical activity; social marketing
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33147704 PMCID: PMC7663013 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17218062
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Campaign schedule.
Process evaluation dimensions and results.
| Process (Implementation) Evaluation Dimensions | Indicators | Results | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implementation fidelity | Campaign calendar schedule | Campaign started on the scheduled date and lasted longer than expected on Portuguese Football Federation (FPF) cable channel. | |
| Stakeholders Engagement | Partnerships | Partnership engagement level was enough for the proper execution of the campaign. The campaign had 3 types of partnerships: campaign partners: Portuguese Institute of Sports and Youth (IPDJ) and FPF; dissemination partners: transport, cinemas, TV channels; process evaluation partners: “Associação Mutualista Montepio” and Lisbon Municipality | |
| Event attendance | All campaign’s target stakeholders (from health, education, transport, sport, municipalities sectors) were present. | ||
| Media Coverage | Campaign launch | 20 news | |
| Campaign event | 5 news | ||
| Campaign storyline as planned | The campaign ran as planned. | ||
| Campaign Website | Trafic: 2326 visits | ||
| Reach and exposure to the Targeted Audience | TV | Number of spots: 212; | |
| Radio | National | Number of stations: 2; | |
| Regional | Number of stations: 20; | ||
| Internet | Number of clicks: 11,645; | ||
| Youtube | Number of views: 130,940; | ||
| Online Regional Media | Number of media: 19; | ||
| Outdoor | 500 mupis | ||
| Print Regional Press | Number of media: 19; | ||
Demographic characteristics for all respondents pre- and post-campaign.
| Pre-Campaign | Post-Campaign | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % | ||
|
| 878 | 100 | 1319 | 100 | |
|
| <0.001 | ||||
| 30–39 | 134 | 15.26 | 339 | 25.70 | |
| 40–49 | 353 | 40.21 | 510 | 38.67 | |
| 50–59 | 247 | 28.13 | 303 | 22.97 | |
| 60–65 | 144 | 16.40 | 167 | 12.66 | |
|
| 0.52 | ||||
| Male | 379 | 43.17 | 551 | 41.77 | |
| Female | 499 | 56.83 | 768 | 58.23 | |
|
| <0.01 | ||||
| High school or less | 300 | 34.17 | 371 | 28.13 | |
| Above high school | 564 | 64.24 | 922 | 69.90 | |
| Missing | 14 | 1.59 | 26 | 1.97 | |
|
| 0.49 | ||||
| Employed | 713 | 81.21 | 1096 | 83.09 | |
| Other | 157 | 17.88 | 214 | 16.22 | |
| Missing | 8 | 0.91 | 9 | 0.68 | |
|
| 0.37 | ||||
| Central Urban | 405 | 46.13 | 649 | 49.20 | |
| Other | 465 | 52.96 | 659 | 49.96 | |
| Missing | 8 | 0.91 | 11 | 0.83 | |
|
| <0.001 | ||||
| Bad | 324 | 36.90 | 389 | 29.49 | |
| Good | 542 | 61.73 | 916 | 69.45 | |
| Missing | 12 | 1.37 | 14 | 1.06 | |
|
| |||||
| Diabetes | 26 | 2.96 | 47 | 3.56 | 0.44 |
| Cardiovascular Diseases | 13 | 1.48 | 26 | 1.97 | 0.39 |
| Hypertension | 132 | 15.03 | 170 | 12.89 | 0.15 |
| Depression | 76 | 8.66 | 63 | 4.78 | <0.001 |
| Anxiety | 119 | 13.55 | 138 | 10.46 | 0.03 |
| No diseases | 461 | 52.51 | 779 | 59.06 | <0.01 |
| Other diseases | 192 | 21.87 | 241 | 18.27 | 0.04 |
Figure 2Campaign recall (%) (generic, text prompted, and visuals prompted).
Adjusted COM-B proximal indicators for all respondents’ pre-campaign and post-campaign (increasing scores indicate increased agreement).
| Pre-Campaign | Post-Campaign M (SE) | Effect Size (Cohen’s | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Climbing stairs or walking are not physical activity | 2.35 (0.07) | 2.17 (0.06) | −0.09 | 0.05 |
| Only high intensity activity has benefits | 1.61 (0.04) | 1.57 (0.04) | −0.03 | 0.44 |
|
| ||||
| I am confident that I can keep active on a regular basis, even when... | ||||
| I have little time | 4.24 (0.06) | 4.65 (0.05) | 0.25 | <0.001 |
| I’m not in great physical shape | 4.49 (0.06) | 4.88 (0.05) | 0.24 | <0.001 |
| I do not have specific equipment | 4.75 (0.07) | 5.07 (0.06) | 0.17 | <0.001 |
| I do not have much money | 4.92 (0.07) | 5.07 (0.06) | 0.08 | 0.09 |
| I can integrate physical activity into my day | 4.83 (0.06) | 5.45 (0.05) | 0.38 | <0.001 |
| Currently, it is relatively easy for me to walk or bicycle for at least part of my daily journeys | 4.06 (0.08) | 4.33 (0.06) | 0.13 | <0.01 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| There are many opportunities to be active where I live | 5.20 (0.06) | 5.39 (0.05) | 0.12 | <0.01 |
| There are not opportunities for me to be active | 3.54 (0.08) | 3.36 (0.06) | −0.09 | 0.07 |
| In my day to day, there are spaces, situations, or people that encourage me to move more | 4.16 (0.07) | 4.26 (0.06) | 0.05 | 0.25 |
| 5.58 (0.06) | 5.57 (0.05) | −0.01 | 0.94 | |
| I know a lot of people who are not active | 5.47 (0.06) | 5.43 (0.05) | −0.02 | 0.59 |
| There are more people who use public transport or bicycles compared to cars | 3.97 (0.07) | 4.06 (0.05) | 0.05 | 0.30 |
| There are more and more people being active | 5.75 (0.04) | 5.70 (0.04) | −0.04 | 0.36 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Physical activity improves my quality of life | 6.81 (0.03) | 6.88 (0.03) | 0.08 | 0.12 |
| 5.17 (0.06) | 5.46 (0.05) | 0.18 | <0.001 | |
|
| ||||
| I like to do physical activity | 5.29 (0.06) | 5.48 (0.05) | 0.12 | 0.02 |
|
| ||||
| I do physical activity because I want to, not because I have to | 4.60 (0.07) | 4.84 (0.06) | 0.12 | <0.01 |
| 5.37 (0.06) | 5.31 (0.05) | −0.04 | 0.46 |
Note: Analyses adjusted for age, sex, education, depression, anxiety, nil diseases and other diseases. Response ranged from 1 (fully disagree) to 7 (fully agree).
Adjusted physical activity for all respondent’s pre-campaign and post-campaign.
| Pre-Campaign | Post-Campaign | Effect Size (Cohen’s | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weekly MET minutes | ||||
| Vigorous | 1497 (75) | 1769 (61) | 0.13 | <0.01 |
| Moderate | 1164 (48) | 1171 (39) | 0.01 | 0.92 |
| Walking | 1062 (43) | 1102 (35) | 0.03 | 0.47 |
| Total activity | 3613 (119) | 3921 (98) | 0.10 | 0.05 |
| Sitting | 2268 (40) | 2222 (32) | −0.04 | 0.37 |
Note: Analyses adjusted for age, sex, education, depression, anxiety, nil diseases and other diseases. MET-minutes are the weekly time x the energy expenditure value (METs) assigned to each physical activity.
Adjusted odds of lifestyle physical activity behaviours post-campaign compared to pre-campaign.
| Pre-Campaign | Post-Campaign | Post-Campaign Compared to Pre-Campaign | Effect Size (Cohen’s | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ...climbed the stairs rather than taking the lift | 488 (63.3) | 766 (66.8) | 1.14 (0.94, 1.39) | 0.07 | 0.18 |
| ...walked rather than going by car | 384 (49.8) | 579 (50.5) | 1.07 (0.89, 1.3) | 0.01 | 0.45 |
| ...parked the car further or got off public transport early to walk more | 270 (35) | 381 (33.3) | 0.97 (0.8, 1.18) | −0.04 | 0.77 |
| ...taken break during work to walk or move more | 231 (30) | 351 (30.6) | 1.08 (0.88, 1.32) | 0.01 | 0.48 |
| ...chosen to stand when you could sit | 286 (37.1) | 438 (38.2) | 1.06 (0.88, 1.29) | 0.02 | 0.53 |
| ...chosen to do things manually, when you could use machines | 223 (28.9) | 336 (29.3) | 1.08 (0.88, 1.33) | 0.01 | 0.46 |
Note. Analyses adjusted for age, sex, education, depression, anxiety, nil diseases and other diseases.