Effectiveness of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) interventions for promoting physical activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Physical inactivity is a key risk factor for non-communicable diseases, and there is a need for interventions to increase the adoption and maintenance of regular physical activity. Interventions based on Acceptance and Commitment (ACT) have shown promise for promoting a range of health behaviours, including physical activity. The aims of this review were to (1) determine the effectiveness of ACT interventions for physical activity; and (2) identify the ACT processes, behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and intervention characteristics associated with ACT interventions. Eight electronic databases were searched for ACT interventions that aimed to increase physical activity. Seven eligible studies were included in the systematic review, and ACT processes, Behaviour Change Techniques and other intervention components and characteristics of the included interventions were coded. Six studies were randomised controlled trials that were included in a random-effects meta-analysis, which indicated small-to-moderate effects on physical activity (SMD = 0.32, 95% CI (0.07, 0.57), p = 0.01). ACT interventions show promise for increasing physical activity, but very few of the 'active ingredients' of ACT interventions could be characterised as BCTs. Future development of ACT interventions for physical activity should attempt to describe and name the ACT processes targeted by the intervention, and the BCTs used to target those processes

Development and feasibility study of very brief interventions for physical activity in primary care

Abstract Background There is increasing interest in brief and very brief behaviour change interventions for physical activity as they are potentially scalable to the population level. However, few very brief interventions (VBIs) have been published, and evidence is lacking about their feasibility, acceptability and which ‘active ingredients’ (behaviour change techniques) would maximise their effectiveness. The aim of this research was to identify and develop promising VBIs for physical activity and test their feasibility and acceptability in the context of preventive health checks in primary care. Methods The process included two stages, guided by four criteria: effectiveness, feasibility, acceptability, and cost. In Stage 1, we used an iterative approach informed by systematic reviews, a scoping review of BCTs, team discussion, stakeholder consultation, a qualitative study, and cost estimation to guide the development of promising VBIs. In Stage 2, a feasibility study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of the short-listed VBIs, using tape-recordings and interviews with practitioners (n = 4) and patients (n = 68), to decide which VBIs merited further evaluation in a pilot trial. Results Four VBIs were short-listed: Motivational intervention; Action Planning intervention; Pedometer intervention; and Physical Activity Diary intervention. All were deliverable in around five minutes and were feasible and acceptable to participants and practitioners. Based on the results of interviews with practitioners and patients, techniques from the VBIs were combined into three new VBIs for further evaluation in a pilot trial. Conclusions Using a two-stage approach, in which we considered the practicability of VBIs (acceptability, feasibility and cost) alongside potential efficacy from the outset, we developed a short-list of four promising VBIs for physical activity and demonstrated that they were acceptable and feasible as part of a preventive health check in primary care. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN02863077 . Registered 5 October 2012

Behavioural analysis of postnatal physical activity in the UK according to the COM-B model: a multi-methods study.

OBJECTIVE: Develop a behavioural analysis of factors influencing postnatal physical activity (PA) according to the 'capability, opportunity, motivation and behaviour' (COM-B) model of behaviour to inform intervention development using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW). DESIGN: Cross-sectional, multi-method study using semi-structured interviews and a quantitative questionnaire. SETTING: Children's centres and mother and baby groups in Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience samples of postnatal women were interviewed (n=16) and completed the questionnaire (n=158). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews followed a preprepared topic guide exploring the COM-B model components and analysed using framework analysis. The questionnaire, based on the self-evaluation of behaviour questionnaire, was adapted using patient and public involvement and findings from the interviews. Questionnaire participants rated their agreement with 22 predefined statements related to COM-B model components. Mean, SD and 95% CI were calculated and each item categorised according to importance. Demographic data were collected. RESULTS: The questionnaire identified that new mothers would be more active if they had more time, felt less tired, had accessible childcare, were part of a group, advised by a healthcare professional, able to develop a habit and had more motivation. Additional themes emerging from qualitative data were engaging in PA groups with other new mothers, limited physical stamina following complicated births, social interaction, enjoyment and parental beliefs as motivation, provision of child-friendly PA facilities and environments and babies' unpredictable routines. CONCLUSION: The behavioural analysis presented in this paper identifies and adds detail on the range of factors influencing the target behaviour. Some are unique to the target population, requiring targeted interventions for postnatal women, whereas some are individualised, suggesting the need for individually tailored interventions. We will use the behavioural analysis presented to design an intervention using the subsequent steps in the BCW.This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research

Erratum to: Development and feasibility study of very brief interventions for physical activity in primary care.

Upon publication of this article [1] it has been noted that due to a technical error the publisher missed to include the Open Access Licence statement in the copyright line. The correct copyright line should have read: © 2015 Pears et al. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated

Development and feasibility study of very brief interventions for physical activity in primary care

Abstract Background There is increasing interest in brief and very brief behaviour change interventions for physical activity as they are potentially scalable to the population level. However, few very brief interventions (VBIs) have been published, and evidence is lacking about their feasibility, acceptability and which ‘active ingredients’ (behaviour change techniques) would maximise their effectiveness. The aim of this research was to identify and develop promising VBIs for physical activity and test their feasibility and acceptability in the context of preventive health checks in primary care. Methods The process included two stages, guided by four criteria: effectiveness, feasibility, acceptability, and cost. In Stage 1, we used an iterative approach informed by systematic reviews, a scoping review of BCTs, team discussion, stakeholder consultation, a qualitative study, and cost estimation to guide the development of promising VBIs. In Stage 2, a feasibility study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of the short-listed VBIs, using tape-recordings and interviews with practitioners (n = 4) and patients (n = 68), to decide which VBIs merited further evaluation in a pilot trial. Results Four VBIs were short-listed: Motivational intervention; Action Planning intervention; Pedometer intervention; and Physical Activity Diary intervention. All were deliverable in around five minutes and were feasible and acceptable to participants and practitioners. Based on the results of interviews with practitioners and patients, techniques from the VBIs were combined into three new VBIs for further evaluation in a pilot trial. Conclusions Using a two-stage approach, in which we considered the practicability of VBIs (acceptability, feasibility and cost) alongside potential efficacy from the outset, we developed a short-list of four promising VBIs for physical activity and demonstrated that they were acceptable and feasible as part of a preventive health check in primary care. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN02863077 . Registered 5 October 2012

A randomised controlled trial of three very brief interventions for physical activity in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Very brief interventions (VBIs) for physical activity are promising, but there is uncertainty about their potential effectiveness and cost. We assessed potential efficacy, feasibility, acceptability, and cost of three VBIs in primary care, in order to select the most promising intervention for evaluation in a subsequent large-scale RCT. METHODS: Three hundred and ninety four adults aged 40-74 years were randomised to a Motivational (n = 83), Pedometer (n = 74), or Combined (n = 80) intervention, delivered immediately after a preventative health check in primary care, or control (Health Check only; n = 157). Potential efficacy was measured as the probability of a positive difference between an intervention arm and the control arm in mean physical activity, measured by accelerometry at 4 weeks. RESULTS: For the primary outcome the estimated effect sizes (95 % CI) relative to the Control arm for the Motivational, Pedometer and Combined arms were respectively: +20.3 (-45.0, +85.7), +23.5 (-51.3, +98.3), and -3.1 (-69.3, +63.1) counts per minute. There was a73% probability of a positive effect on physical activity for each of the Motivational and Pedometer VBIs relative to control, but only 46 % for the Combined VBI. Only the Pedometer VBI was deliverable within 5 min. All VBIs were acceptable and low cost. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the four criteria, the Pedometer VBI was selected for evaluation in a large-scale trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN02863077 . Retrospectively registered 05/10/2012.This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Grant Reference Number RP-PG-0608-10079). ATP and JV were supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The funder had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, the writing of the manuscript, and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from BioMed Central via https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3684-

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief physical activity intervention delivered in NHS Health Checks (VBI Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity interventions that are targeted at individuals can be effective in encouraging people to be more physically active. However, most such interventions are too long or complex and not scalable to the general population. This trial will test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief physical activity intervention when delivered as part of preventative health checks in primary care (National Health Service (NHS) Health Check). METHODS/DESIGN: The Very Brief Intervention (VBI) Trial is a two parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial with 1:1 individual allocation and follow-up at 3 months. A total of 1,140 participants will be recruited from 23 primary care practices in the east of England. Participants eligible for an NHS Health Check and who are considered suitable to take part by their doctor and able to provide written informed consent are eligible for the trial. Participants are randomly assigned at the beginning of the NHS Health Check to either 1) the control arm, in which they receive only the NHS Health Check, or 2) the intervention arm, in which they receive the NHS Health Check plus 'Step It Up' (a very brief intervention that can be delivered in 5 minutes by nurses and/or healthcare assistants at the end of the Health Check). 'Step It Up' includes (1) a face-to-face discussion, including feedback on current activity level, recommendations for physical activity, and information on how to use a pedometer, set step goals, and monitor progress; (2) written material supporting the discussion and tips and links to further resources to help increase physical activity; and (3) a pedometer to wear and a step chart for monitoring progress. The primary outcome is accelerometer counts per minute at 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the time spent in the different levels of physical activity, self-reported physical activity and economic measures. Trial recruitment is underway. DISCUSSION: The VBI trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Step It Up intervention delivered during NHS Health Checks and will inform policy decisions about introducing very brief interventions into routine primary care practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN72691150 . Registered on 17 July 2014

Evaluation of a very brief pedometer-based physical activity intervention delivered in NHS Health Checks in England: The VBI randomised controlled trial.

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)

Five Myths of Assessment

This paper describes some issues concerning assessment and the corresponding motivation for students to work in a desired manner. The issues came from studying assessment in the Runestone project, but are, as we see them, of general interest. Our findings illustrate the need to not take the effects of assessment, nor what it measures, for granted. It is our intention to promote Computer Science Education research as an essential area for improving our education, in this case by exposing myths about assessment as myths

Stepping Stones: Capacity Building in Engineering Education

CeTUSS (www.CeTUSS.se) is an engineering education center established by the Swedish Council for Renewal of Higher Education in 2004. During 2006/2007 CeTUSS funded "Stepping Stones", a multi-phase (project based) initiative for tertiary engineering educators at Swedish Universities. The aim was to build a community of engineering educators and to increase their familiarity with evaluation and research approaches to assessing the impact of classroom interventions. Stepping Stones was based on the earlier US, UK and Australian initiatives; the Scaffolding, Bootstrapping and BRACE programmes. The approach uses a joint, multi-method, research study to raise awareness of relevant theory, while simultaneously supporting community development. Community building is achieved through joint work and shared experiences which promote convergence on a common set of values and ideals in relation to scholarship of teaching and learning. Investigative "capacity" was enhanced by drawing together a Swedish pool of engineering education expertise. Stepping Stones consisted of three phases. The first phase was a week long workshop examining relevant theory and empirical study design in engineering education research. This workshop introduced an "experiment kit", a protocol detailing experimental design of the project that participants jointly implemented in phase two. During phase two the participants gathered data in their own classrooms, contributing to a joint corpus of material for analysis in phase three. During the data collection process participants administered and validated a variety of instruments; surveys and interviews (including photo elicitation), and concept map collection using Explanograms (a tool for automating collection of handwritten data developed by the CeTUSS center). The final phase was a week-long workshop where participants analyzed the aggregated data and produced a written report, 'What is the Word for "Engineering" in Swedish: Swedish Students Conceptions of their Discipline' (http://www.it.uu.se/research/publications/reports/2007-018)