Gonzalo Marchant1, Flavia Bonaiuto2, Marino Bonaiuto3, Emma Guillet Descas1. 1. Laboratory of Vulnerabilities and Innovation in Sport, UFR STAPS, Claude Bernard University Lyon 1, Lyon, France. 2. Faculty of Economics, Universitas Mercatorum, Rome, Italy. 3. CIRPA - Interuniversity Research Centre in Environmental Psychology, Department of Psychology of Developmental and Socialization Processes, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this research were (1) to compare the levels of physical activity of eHealth users and non-users, (2) to determine the effects of these technologies on motivations, and (3) to establish the relationship that could exist between psychological constructs and physical activity behaviors. METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved 569 adults who responded to an online questionnaire during confinement in France. The questions assessed demographics, usage of eHealth for exercise and physical activity, and behavioral levels. The questionnaire also measured the constructs of Social Cognitive Theory, the Theory of Planned Behavior, and automaticity facets toward eHealth for exercise and physical activity. RESULTS: Participants who were users of eHealth for exercise and physical activity presented significantly higher levels of vigorous physical activity and total physical activity per week than non-users (p < 0.001). The chi-square test showed significant interactions between psychological constructs toward eHealth (i.e., self-efficacy, behavioral attitudes, intentions, and automaticity) and physical activity levels (all interactions were p < 0.05). Self-efficacy was significantly and negatively correlated with walking time per week. Concerning the automaticity facets, efficiency was positive and significantly correlated with vigorous physical activity levels per week (p < 0.05). Then, regressions analyses showed that self-efficacy and automaticity efficiency explained 5% of the variance of walking minutes per week (ß = -0.27, p < 0.01) and vigorous physical activity per week (ß = 0.20, p < 0.05), respectively. CONCLUSION: This study has shown that people during confinement looked for ways to stay active through eHealth. However, we must put any technological solution into perspective. The eHealth offers possibilities to stay active, however its benefits and the psychological mechanisms affected by it remains to be demonstrated: eHealth could be adapted to each person and context.
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this research were (1) to compare the levels of physical activity of eHealth users and non-users, (2) to determine the effects of these technologies on motivations, and (3) to establish the relationship that could exist between psychological constructs and physical activity behaviors. METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved 569 adults who responded to an online questionnaire during confinement in France. The questions assessed demographics, usage of eHealth for exercise and physical activity, and behavioral levels. The questionnaire also measured the constructs of Social Cognitive Theory, the Theory of Planned Behavior, and automaticity facets toward eHealth for exercise and physical activity. RESULTS: Participants who were users of eHealth for exercise and physical activity presented significantly higher levels of vigorous physical activity and total physical activity per week than non-users (p < 0.001). The chi-square test showed significant interactions between psychological constructs toward eHealth (i.e., self-efficacy, behavioral attitudes, intentions, and automaticity) and physical activity levels (all interactions were p < 0.05). Self-efficacy was significantly and negatively correlated with walking time per week. Concerning the automaticity facets, efficiency was positive and significantly correlated with vigorous physical activity levels per week (p < 0.05). Then, regressions analyses showed that self-efficacy and automaticity efficiency explained 5% of the variance of walking minutes per week (ß = -0.27, p < 0.01) and vigorous physical activity per week (ß = 0.20, p < 0.05), respectively. CONCLUSION: This study has shown that people during confinement looked for ways to stay active through eHealth. However, we must put any technological solution into perspective. The eHealth offers possibilities to stay active, however its benefits and the psychological mechanisms affected by it remains to be demonstrated: eHealth could be adapted to each person and context.
Authors: Amanda L Rebar; James A Dimmock; Ben Jackson; Ryan E Rhodes; Andrew Kates; Jade Starling; Corneel Vandelanotte Journal: Health Psychol Rev Date: 2016-05-20
Authors: Jennifer K Carroll; Anne Moorhead; Raymond Bond; William G LeBlanc; Robert J Petrella; Kevin Fiscella Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Valerie J Silfee; Christina F Haughton; Danielle E Jake-Schoffman; Andrea Lopez-Cepero; Christine N May; Meera Sreedhara; Milagros C Rosal; Stephenie C Lemon Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2018-05-10
Authors: Amelia Romeo; Sarah Edney; Ronald Plotnikoff; Rachel Curtis; Jillian Ryan; Ilea Sanders; Alyson Crozier; Carol Maher Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-03-19 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Madison Milne-Ives; Ching Lam; Caroline De Cock; Michelle Helena Van Velthoven; Edward Meinert Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Amir Hossien Mehrsafar; Ali Moghadam Zadeh; Parisa Gazerani; Jose Carlos Jaenes Sanchez; Mehri Nejat; Mastaneh Rajabian Tabesh; Maryam Abolhasani Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2021-06-11