Jasmin K Ma1,2, Jennifer Leese1,2, Stephanie Therrien1, Alison M Hoens1,2,3, Karen Tsui1, Linda C Li1,2. 1. Arthritis Research Canada, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada. 2. Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 3. Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low participation rates (1-31%) and unique barriers to strength training (e.g., specialized knowledge, equipment, perceived complexity) suggest effective strength training interventions may differ from effective aerobic or general physical activity interventions. The purpose of this scoping review was to examine interventions used to improve strength training participation through mapping theory, intervention characteristics, prescription parameters, and behaviour change techniques. METHODS: Recommendations by Levac et al. (2010) and PRISMA-ScR were followed in the conduct and reporting of this review, respectively. Patients and exercise professionals participated in developing the research question and data extraction form, interpreting the findings, and drafting the manuscript. Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and PubMed databases (inception-December 2020) were searched. The inclusion criteria were (a) original peer-reviewed articles and grey literature, (b) intervention study design, and (c) behavioural interventions targeted towards improving strength training participation. Two reviewers performed data screening, extraction, and coding. The interventions were coded using the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy version 1. Data were synthesized using descriptive and frequency reporting. RESULTS: Twenty-seven unique interventions met the inclusion criteria. Social cognitive theory (n = 9), the transtheoretical model (n = 4), and self-determination theory (n = 2) were the only behaviour change theories used. Almost all the interventions were delivered face-to-face (n = 25), with the majority delivered by an exercise specialist (n = 23) in community or home settings (n = 24), with high variability in exercise prescription parameters. Instructions on how to perform the behaviour, behavioural practice, graded tasks, goal setting, adding objects to the environment (e.g., providing equipment), and using a credible source (e.g., exercise specialist delivery) comprised the most common behaviour change techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight gaps in theory, intervention delivery, exercise prescription parameters, and behaviour change techniques for future interventions to examine and improve our understanding of how to most effectively influence strength training participation.
BACKGROUND: Low participation rates (1-31%) and unique barriers to strength training (e.g., specialized knowledge, equipment, perceived complexity) suggest effective strength training interventions may differ from effective aerobic or general physical activity interventions. The purpose of this scoping review was to examine interventions used to improve strength training participation through mapping theory, intervention characteristics, prescription parameters, and behaviour change techniques. METHODS: Recommendations by Levac et al. (2010) and PRISMA-ScR were followed in the conduct and reporting of this review, respectively. Patients and exercise professionals participated in developing the research question and data extraction form, interpreting the findings, and drafting the manuscript. Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and PubMed databases (inception-December 2020) were searched. The inclusion criteria were (a) original peer-reviewed articles and grey literature, (b) intervention study design, and (c) behavioural interventions targeted towards improving strength training participation. Two reviewers performed data screening, extraction, and coding. The interventions were coded using the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy version 1. Data were synthesized using descriptive and frequency reporting. RESULTS: Twenty-seven unique interventions met the inclusion criteria. Social cognitive theory (n = 9), the transtheoretical model (n = 4), and self-determination theory (n = 2) were the only behaviour change theories used. Almost all the interventions were delivered face-to-face (n = 25), with the majority delivered by an exercise specialist (n = 23) in community or home settings (n = 24), with high variability in exercise prescription parameters. Instructions on how to perform the behaviour, behavioural practice, graded tasks, goal setting, adding objects to the environment (e.g., providing equipment), and using a credible source (e.g., exercise specialist delivery) comprised the most common behaviour change techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight gaps in theory, intervention delivery, exercise prescription parameters, and behaviour change techniques for future interventions to examine and improve our understanding of how to most effectively influence strength training participation.
Authors: Ryan S Falck; Jennifer C Davis; John R Best; Rachel A Crockett; Teresa Liu-Ambrose Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2019-03-26 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Fleetwood Loustalot; Susan A Carlson; Judy Kruger; David M Buchner; Janet E Fulton Journal: Res Q Exerc Sport Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Brett R Gordon; Cillian P McDowell; Mats Hallgren; Jacob D Meyer; Mark Lyons; Matthew P Herring Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: David Sparrow; Daniel J Gottlieb; Deborah Demolles; Roger A Fielding Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Cally A Davies; John C Spence; Corneel Vandelanotte; Cristina M Caperchione; W Kerry Mummery Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2012-04-30 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Ashley Gluchowski; Helena Bilsborough; Jane Mcdermott; Helen Hawley-Hague; Chris Todd Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-13 Impact factor: 4.614