Search

Effects of behaviour change on cognitions are rarely examined within the Theory of Planned Behaviour. We tested whether increases in physical activity resulted in more positive beliefs about further change among a cohort of sedentary adults participating in a behavioural intervention trial (ProActive). At baseline, 6 and 12 months, 365 adults completed questionnaires assessing physical activity and cognitions about becoming more active over the coming year. Objective activity was assessed at baseline and 12 months. Participants reporting larger increases in activity were no more positive about making further increases than those reporting less behaviour change (p-values>0.05). Participants with larger increases in objective activity reported weaker perceived control (β=-0.342; p=0.001) and more negative instrumental attitudes (β=-0.230; p=0.017) at 12 months. Participants may have felt that they had changed enough or measures of perceived success may be more sensitive to behaviour change. Alternatively, long measurement intervals may have missed immediate cognitive and affective consequences of behaviour change, or such effects may require participants to consistently self-monitor or receive feedback on performance. Future studies could test the effect of such techniques on physical activity and a wider range of cognitive, affective and physiological consequences, using more frequent measurement intervals.

Additional file 2. COREQ checklist for qualitative study

Additional file 1. Interview Guide for qualitative study

OBJECTIVES: To characterize people of advanced old age in their last year of life and compare those dying in their late 80s with those dying aged 90 and older to inform policy and planning. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected population-based data from the Cambridge City over-75s Cohort (CC75C) Study, United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women aged 85 and older at death who died less than 1 year after taking part in any CC75C survey (N=321). MEASUREMENTS: Physical health, functional disability, self-rated health, cognitive status. RESULTS: Functional and cognitive impairments were markedly higher for those who died aged 90 and older- predominantly women-than for those who died aged 85 to 89. At least half (49.4-93.6%) of subjects aged 90 and older needed maximum assistance in virtually every daily activity; those aged 85 to 89 needed this only for shopping and laundry. Disability in basic and instrumental activities rose from 59.1% before to 85.4% after the age of 90 and cognitive impairment (Mini-Mental State Examination score < or =21) from 41.7% to 69.4%. Despite this and proximity to death, 60.5% and 67.0%, respectively, rated their health positively. Only one in five reported needing more help. CONCLUSION: This study provides new data identifying high levels of physical and cognitive disability in very old people in the year before death. As the very old population rises, so will support needs for people dying in extreme old age. The mismatch between health perceptions and functional limitations suggests that these vulnerable older adults may not seek help from which they could benefit. These findings have major policy and planning implications for end-of-life care for the oldest old.

This paper presents a hypothesis about how social interactions shape and influence predictive processing in the brain. The paper integrates concepts from neuroscience and sociology where a gulf presently exists between the ways that each describe the same phenomenon – how the social world is engaged with by thinking humans. We combine the concepts of predictive processing models (also called predictive coding models in the neuroscience literature) with ideal types, typifications and social practice – concepts from the sociological literature. This generates a unified hypothetical framework integrating the social world and hypothesised brain processes. The hypothesis combines aspects of neuroscience and psychology with social theory to show how social behaviors may be “mapped” onto brain processes. It outlines a conceptual framework that connects the two disciplines and that may enable creative dialogue and potential future research.

Background: Electronic monitoring is recommended for accurate measurement of medication adherence but a possible limitation is that it may influence adherence. Purpose: To test the reactive effect of electronic monitoring in a randomized controlled trial. Methods: A total of 226 adults with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c ≥58 mmol/mol were randomized to receiving their main oral glucose lowering medication in electronic containers or standard packaging. The primary outcomes were self-reported adherence measured with the MARS (Medication Adherence Report Scale; range 5-25) and HbA1c at 8 weeks. Results: Non-significantly higher adherence and lower HbA1c were observed in the electronic container group (differences in means, adjusting for baseline value: MARS, 0.4 [95 % CI -0.1 to 0.8, p = 0.11]; HbA1c (mmol/mol), -1.02 [-2.73 to 0.71, p = 0.25]). Conclusions: Electronic containers may lead to a small increase in adherence but this potential limitation is outweighed by their advantages. Our findings support electronic monitoring as the method of choice in research on medication adherence. (Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCT N30522359) © 2014 The Author(s).

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence about predictors of health behaviour change in people with type 2 diabetes. The aim of this study was to assess change in health behaviours over one year and to identify predictors of behaviour change among adults with screen-detected and recently clinically diagnosed diabetes. METHODS: ADDITION-Plus was a randomised controlled trial of a behaviour change intervention among 478 patients (40-69 years). Physical activity and diet were measured objectively (physical activity at 1 year) and by self-report at baseline and one year. Associations between baseline predictors and behaviour change were quantified using multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: Participants increased their plasma vitamin C and fruit intake, reduced energy and fat intake from baseline to follow-up. Younger age, male sex, a smaller waist circumference, and a lower systolic blood pressure at baseline were associated with higher levels of objectively measured physical activity at one year. Greater increases in plasma vitamin C were observed in women (beta-coefficient [95% CI]: beta = -5.52 [-9.81, -1.22]) and in those with screen-detected diabetes (beta = 6.09 [1.74, 10.43]). Younger age predicted a greater reduction in fat (beta = -0.43 [-0.72, -0.13]) and energy intake (beta = -6.62 [-13.2, -0.05]). Patients with screen-detected diabetes (beta = 74.2 [27.92, 120.41]) reported a greater increase in fruit intake. There were no significant predictors of change in self-reported physical activity. Beliefs about behaviour change and diabetes did not predict behaviour change. CONCLUSIONS: Older patients, men and those with a longer duration of diabetes may need more intensive support for dietary change. We recommend that future studies use objective measurement of health behaviours and that researchers add predictors beyond the individual level. Our results support a focus on establishing healthy lifestyle changes early in the diabetes disease trajectory.

BACKGROUND: The majority of people do not achieve recommended levels of physical activity. There is a need for effective, scalable interventions to promote activity. Self-monitoring by pedometer is a potentially suitable strategy. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief (5-minute) pedometer-based intervention ('Step It Up') delivered as part of National Health Service (NHS) Health Checks in primary care. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The Very Brief Intervention (VBI) Trial was a two parallel-group, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 3-month follow-up, conducted in 23 primary care practices in the East of England. Participants were 1,007 healthy adults aged 40 to 74 years eligible for an NHS Health Check. They were randomly allocated (1:1) using a web-based tool between October 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, to either intervention (505) or control group (502), stratified by primary care practice. Participants were aware of study group allocation. Control participants received the NHS Health Check only. Intervention participants additionally received Step It Up: a 5-minute face-to-face discussion, written materials, pedometer, and step chart. The primary outcome was accelerometer-based physical activity volume at 3-month follow-up adjusted for sex, 5-year age group, and general practice. Secondary outcomes included time spent in different intensities of physical activity, self-reported physical activity, and economic measures. We conducted an in-depth fidelity assessment on a subsample of Health Check consultations. Participants' mean age was 56 years, two-thirds were female, they were predominantly white, and two-thirds were in paid employment. The primary outcome was available in 859 (85.3%) participants. There was no significant between-group difference in activity volume at 3 months (adjusted intervention effect 8.8 counts per minute [cpm]; 95% CI -18.7 to 36.3; p = 0.53). We found no significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes of step counts per day, time spent in moderate or vigorous activity, time spent in vigorous activity, and time spent in moderate-intensity activity (accelerometer-derived variables); as well as in total physical activity, home-based activity, work-based activity, leisure-based activity, commuting physical activity, and screen or TV time (self-reported physical activity variables). Of the 505 intervention participants, 491 (97%) received the Step it Up intervention. Analysis of 37 intervention consultations showed that 60% of Step it Up components were delivered faithfully. The intervention cost £18.04 per participant. Incremental cost to the NHS per 1,000-step increase per day was £96 and to society was £239. Adverse events were reported by 5 intervention participants (of which 2 were serious) and 5 control participants (of which 2 were serious). The study's limitations include a participation rate of 16% and low return of audiotapes by practices for fidelity assessment. CONCLUSIONS: In this large well-conducted trial, we found no evidence of effect of a plausible very brief pedometer intervention embedded in NHS Health Checks on objectively measured activity at 3-month follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN72691150).

BACKGROUND: Implementation of trial interventions is rarely assessed, despite its effects on findings. We assessed the implementation of a nurse-led intervention to facilitate medication adherence in type 2 diabetes (SAMS) in a trial against standard care in general practice. The intervention increased adherence, but not through the hypothesised psychological mechanism. This study aimed to develop a reliable coding frame for tape-recorded consultations, assessing both a priori hypothesised and potential active ingredients observed during implementation, and to describe the delivery and receipt of intervention and standard care components to understand how the intervention might have worked. METHODS: 211 patients were randomised to intervention or comparison groups and 194/211 consultations were tape-recorded. Practice nurses delivered standard care to all patients and motivational and action planning (implementation intention) techniques to intervention patients only. The coding frame was developed and piloted iteratively on selected tape recordings until a priori reliability thresholds were achieved. All tape-recorded consultations were coded and a random subsample double-coded. RESULTS: Nurse communication, nurse-patient relationship and patient responses were identified as potential active ingredients over and above the a priori hypothesised techniques. The coding frame proved reliable. Intervention and standard care were clearly differentiated. Nurse protocol adherence was good (M (SD) = 3.95 (0.91)) and competence of intervention delivery moderate (M (SD) = 3.15 (1.01)). Nurses frequently reinforced positive beliefs about taking medication (e.g., 65% for advantages) but rarely prompted problem solving of negative beliefs (e.g., 21% for barriers). Patients' action plans were virtually identical to current routines. Nurses showed significantly less patient-centred communication with the intervention than comparison group. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to reliably assess the implementation of behaviour change interventions in clinical practice. The main study results could not be explained by poor delivery of motivational and action planning components, definition of new action plans, improved problem solving or patient-centred communication. Possible mechanisms of increased medication adherence include spending more time discussing it and mental rehearsal of successful performance of current routines, combined with action planning. Delivery of a new behaviour change intervention may lead to less patient-centred communication and possible reduction in overall trial effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN30522359.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to assess whether or not a theory-based behaviour change intervention delivered by trained and quality-assured lifestyle facilitators can achieve and maintain improvements in physical activity, dietary change, medication adherence and smoking cessation in people with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes. METHODS: An explanatory randomised controlled trial was conducted in 34 general practices in Eastern England (Anglo-Danish-Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment in People with Screen Detected Diabetes in Primary Care-Plus [ADDITION-Plus]). In all, 478 patients meeting eligibility criteria (age 40 to 69 years with recently diagnosed screen or clinically detected diabetes) were individually randomised to receive either intensive treatment (n = 239) or intensive treatment plus a theory-based behaviour change intervention led by a facilitator external to the general practice team (n = 239). Randomisation was central and independent using a partial minimisation procedure to balance stratifiers between treatment arms. Facilitators taught patients skills to facilitate change in and maintenance of key health behaviours, including goal setting, self-monitoring and building habits. Primary outcomes included physical activity energy expenditure (individually calibrated heart rate monitoring and movement sensing), change in objectively measured fruit and vegetable intake (plasma vitamin C), medication adherence (plasma drug levels) and smoking status (plasma cotinine levels) at 1 year. Measurements, data entry and laboratory analysis were conducted with staff unaware of participants' study group allocation. RESULTS: Of 475 participants still alive, 444 (93%; intervention group 95%, comparison group 92%) attended 1-year follow-up. There were no significant differences between groups in physical activity (difference: +1.50 kJ kg(-1) day(-1); 95% CI -1.74, 4.74), plasma vitamin C (difference: -3.84 μmol/l; 95% CI -8.07, 0.38), smoking (OR 1.37; 95% CI 0.77, 2.43) and plasma drug levels (difference in metformin levels: -119.5 μmol/l; 95% CI -335.0, 95.9). Cardiovascular risk factors and self-reported behaviour improved in both groups with no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: For patients with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes receiving intensive treatment in UK primary care, a facilitator-led individually tailored behaviour change intervention did not improve objectively measured health behaviours or cardiovascular risk factors over 1 year. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN99175498 FUNDING: The trial is supported by the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, National Health Service R&D support funding (including the Primary Care Research and Diabetes Research Networks) and National Institute of Health Research under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme. The Primary Care Unit is supported by NIHR Research funds. Bio-Rad provided equipment for HbA1c testing during the screening phase.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses have identified promising behavior change techniques (BCTs) in changing obesity-related behaviors from intervention descriptions. However, it is unclear whether these BCTs are used by intervention participants and are related to outcomes. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to investigate BCT use by participants of an intervention targeting physical activity and diet and whether BCT use was related to behavior change and weight loss. METHODS: Intervention participants (N = 239; 40-69 years) with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes in the ADDITION-Plus trial received a theory-based intervention which taught them a range of BCTs. BCT usage was reported at 1 year. RESULTS: Thirty-six percent of the participants reported using all 16 intervention BCTs. Use of a higher number of BCTs and specific BCTs (e.g., goal setting) were associated with a reduction in body mass index (BMI). CONCLUSIONS: BCT use was associated with weight loss. Future research should identify strategies to promote BCT use in daily life. ( TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN99175498.).

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes poses a major public health challenge. Population-based screening and early treatment for type 2 diabetes could reduce this growing burden. However, uncertainty persists around the benefits of screening for type 2 diabetes. We assessed the effect of a population-based stepwise screening programme on mortality. METHODS: In a pragmatic parallel group, cluster-randomised trial, 33 general practices in eastern England were randomly assigned by the method of minimisation in an unbalanced design to: screening followed by intensive multifactorial treatment for people diagnosed with diabetes (n=15); screening plus routine care of diabetes according to national guidelines (n=13); and a no-screening control group (n=5). The study population consisted of 20,184 individuals aged 40-69 years (mean 58 years), at high risk of prevalent undiagnosed diabetes, on the basis of a previously validated risk score. In screening practices, individuals were invited to a stepwise programme including random capillary blood glucose and glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) tests, a fasting capillary blood glucose test, and a confirmatory oral glucose tolerance test. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. All participants were flagged for mortality surveillance by the England and Wales Office of National Statistics. Analysis was by intention-to-screen and compared all-cause mortality rates between screening and control groups. This study is registered, number ISRCTN86769081. FINDINGS: Of 16,047 high-risk individuals in screening practices, 15,089 (94%) were invited for screening during 2001-06, 11,737 (73%) attended, and 466 (3%) were diagnosed with diabetes. 4137 control individuals were followed up. During 184,057 person-years of follow up (median duration 9·6 years [IQR 8·9-9·9]), there were 1532 deaths in the screening practices and 377 in control practices (mortality hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·90-1·25). We noted no significant reduction in cardiovascular (HR 1·02, 95% CI 0·75-1·38), cancer (1·08, 0·90-1·30), or diabetes-related mortality (1·26, 0·75-2·10) associated with invitation to screening. INTERPRETATION: In this large UK sample, screening for type 2 diabetes in patients at increased risk was not associated with a reduction in all-cause, cardiovascular, or diabetes-related mortality within 10 years. The benefits of screening might be smaller than expected and restricted to individuals with detectable disease. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust; UK Medical Research Council; National Health Service research and development support; UK National Institute for Health Research; University of Aarhus, Denmark; Bio-Rad.

Background: The majority of people do not achieve recommended levels of physical activity. There is a need for effective, scalable interventions to promote activity. Self-monitoring by pedometer is a potentially suitable strategy. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief (5-minute) pedometer-based intervention (‘Step It Up’) delivered as part of National Health Service (NHS) Health Checks in primary care. Methods and findings: The Very Brief Intervention (VBI) Trial was a two parallel-group, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 3-month follow-up, conducted in 23 primary care practices in the East of England. Participants were 1,007 healthy adults aged 40 to 74 years eligible for an NHS Health Check. They were randomly allocated (1:1) using a web-based tool between October 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, to either intervention (505) or control group (502), stratified by primary care practice. Participants were aware of study group allocation. Control participants received the NHS Health Check only. Intervention participants additionally received Step It Up: a 5-minute face-to-face discussion, written materials, pedometer, and step chart. The primary outcome was accelerometer-based physical activity volume at 3-month follow-up adjusted for sex, 5-year age group, and general practice. Secondary outcomes included time spent in different intensities of physical activity, self-reported physical activity, and economic measures. We conducted an in-depth fidelity assessment on a subsample of Health Check consultations. Participants’ mean age was 56 years, two-thirds were female, they were predominantly white, and two-thirds were in paid employment. The primary outcome was available in 859 (85.3%) participants. There was no significant between-group difference in activity volume at 3 months (adjusted intervention effect 8.8 counts per minute [cpm]; 95% CI −18.7 to 36.3; p = 0.53). We found no significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes of step counts per day, time spent in moderate or vigorous activity, time spent in vigorous activity, and time spent in moderate-intensity activity (accelerometer-derived variables); as well as in total physical activity, home-based activity, work-based activity, leisure-based activity, commuting physical activity, and screen or TV time (self-reported physical activity variables). Of the 505 intervention participants, 491 (97%) received the Step it Up intervention. Analysis of 37 intervention consultations showed that 60% of Step it Up components were delivered faithfully. The intervention cost £18.04 per participant. Incremental cost to the NHS per 1,000-step increase per day was £96 and to society was £239. Adverse events were reported by 5 intervention participants (of which 2 were serious) and 5 control participants (of which 2 were serious). The study’s limitations include a participation rate of 16% and low return of audiotapes by practices for fidelity assessment. Conclusions: In this large well-conducted trial, we found no evidence of effect of a plausible very brief pedometer intervention embedded in NHS Health Checks on objectively measured activity at 3-month follow-up. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN72691150).

BACKGROUND:The majority of people do not achieve recommended levels of physical activity. There is a need for effective, scalable interventions to promote activity. Self-monitoring by pedometer is a potentially suitable strategy. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief (5-minute) pedometer-based intervention ('Step It Up') delivered as part of National Health Service (NHS) Health Checks in primary care. METHODS AND FINDINGS:The Very Brief Intervention (VBI) Trial was a two parallel-group, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 3-month follow-up, conducted in 23 primary care practices in the East of England. Participants were 1,007 healthy adults aged 40 to 74 years eligible for an NHS Health Check. They were randomly allocated (1:1) using a web-based tool between October 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, to either intervention (505) or control group (502), stratified by primary care practice. Participants were aware of study group allocation. Control participants received the NHS Health Check only. Intervention participants additionally received Step It Up: a 5-minute face-to-face discussion, written materials, pedometer, and step chart. The primary outcome was accelerometer-based physical activity volume at 3-month follow-up adjusted for sex, 5-year age group, and general practice. Secondary outcomes included time spent in different intensities of physical activity, self-reported physical activity, and economic measures. We conducted an in-depth fidelity assessment on a subsample of Health Check consultations. Participants' mean age was 56 years, two-thirds were female, they were predominantly white, and two-thirds were in paid employment. The primary outcome was available in 859 (85.3%) participants. There was no significant between-group difference in activity volume at 3 months (adjusted intervention effect 8.8 counts per minute [cpm]; 95% CI -18.7 to 36.3; p = 0.53). We found no significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes of step counts per day, time spent in moderate or vigorous activity, time spent in vigorous activity, and time spent in moderate-intensity activity (accelerometer-derived variables); as well as in total physical activity, home-based activity, work-based activity, leisure-based activity, commuting physical activity, and screen or TV time (self-reported physical activity variables). Of the 505 intervention participants, 491 (97%) received the Step it Up intervention. Analysis of 37 intervention consultations showed that 60% of Step it Up components were delivered faithfully. The intervention cost £18.04 per participant. Incremental cost to the NHS per 1,000-step increase per day was £96 and to society was £239. Adverse events were reported by 5 intervention participants (of which 2 were serious) and 5 control participants (of which 2 were serious). The study's limitations include a participation rate of 16% and low return of audiotapes by practices for fidelity assessment. CONCLUSIONS:In this large well-conducted trial, we found no evidence of effect of a plausible very brief pedometer intervention embedded in NHS Health Checks on objectively measured activity at 3-month follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN72691150).