4.6 Review

Promoting physical activity: development and testing of self-determination theory-based interventions

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-20

关键词

-

资金

  1. The Ministry of Health and Long Term Care of Ontario (Canada)
  2. South Birmingham Primary Care Trusts
  3. National Health Service
  4. Birmingham City Council
  5. Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation [FCTPOCI/DES/57705/2004]
  6. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation [65565/2004]
  7. Oeiras City Council
  8. Nestle Portugal
  9. IBESA
  10. Medical Research Council [MR/K00414X/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  11. MRC [MR/K00414X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A growing number of studies have pulled from Deci and Ryan's Self-Determination Theory to design interventions targeting health behavior change. More recently, researchers have begun using SDT to promote the adoption and maintenance of an active lifestyle. In this review, we aim to highlight how researchers and practitioners can draw from the SDT framework to develop, implement, and evaluate intervention efforts centered on increasing physical activity levels in different contexts and different populations. In the present paper, the rationale for using SDT to foster physical activity engagement is briefly reviewed before particular attention is given to three recent randomized controlled trials, the Canadian Physical Activity Counseling (PAC) Trial, the Empower trial from the UK, and the Portuguese PESO (Promotion of Health and Exercise in Obesity) trial, each of which focused on promoting physical activity behavior. The SDT-based intervention components, procedures, and participants are highlighted, and the key findings that have emanated from these three trials are presented. Lastly, we outline some of the limitations of the work conducted to date in this area and we acknowledge the challenges that arise when attempting to design, deliver, and test SDT-grounded interventions in the context of physical activity promotion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据