4.7 Article

Initial efficacy of MI, TTM tailoring and HRI's with multiple behaviors for employee health promotion

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages 226-231

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.11.007

Keywords

multiple behavior change; motivational interviewing; TTM tailoring; exercise; stress; smoking; BMI

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG024490-04, R01 AG024490] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCCDPHP CDC HHS [1 R01 DP000103, R01 DP000103] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. This study was designed to compare the initial efficacy of Motivational Interviewing (MI), Online Transtheoretical Model (TTM)tailored communications and a brief Health Risk Intervention (HRI) on four health risk factors (inactivity, BMI, stress and smoking) in a worksite sample. Method. A randomized clinical trial assigned employees to one of three recruitment strategies and one of the three treatments. The treatment protocol included an HRI session for everyone and in addition either a recommended three TTM online sessions or three MI in person or telephone sessions over 6 months. At the initial post-treatment assessment at 6 months, groups were compared on the percentage who had progressed from at risk to taking effective action on each of the four risks. Results. Compared to the HRI only group, the MI and TTM groups had significantly more participants in the Action stage for exercise and effective stress management and significantly fewer risk behaviors at 6 months. MI and TTM group outcomes were not different. Conclusion. This was the first study to demonstrate that MI and online TTM could produce significant multiple behavior changes. Future research will examine the long-term impacts of each treatment, their cost effectiveness, effects on productivity and quality of life and process variables mediating outcomes. (c) 2007 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available