4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

The effect of pedometer use in combination with cognitive and behavioral support materials to promote physical activity

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 70, 期 2, 页码 209-214

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.10.008

关键词

step counter; self-monitoring; '10,000 steps/day'

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: 1. To demonstrate that combining pedometer use with cognitive and behavioral support materials has a positive effect on physical activity (PA) and attitudes towards pedometer use. 2. To investigate how familiar the study sample is with pedometers and the '10,000 steps/day' recommendation. Methods: From a random sample, drawn from the phone book, 304 volunteered (18-75 year) to complete a questionnaire about familiarity with pedometers and the '10,000 steps/day' recommendation. A sample of 103 participants agreed to wear a pedometer for 3 weeks, and was randomly assigned to a condition with cognitive and behavioral support materials (n = 51) or without these materials (n = 52). Participants completed the International Physical Activity Questionnaire before and after 21 days of pedometer use and an additional questionnaire on the attitudes towards pedometer use. Results: More than 58% had never heard of a pedometer. In both conditions, walking (F = 10, p = 0.002), moderate PA (F = 11, p = 0.001), and vigorous PA (F = 14, p < 0.001) increased over time, however no interaction effects could be found. Significantly more participants in the condition with support materials had a positive attitude towards pedometer use. Conclusion: Wearing a pedometer, with or without support materials, may increase PA. In our study, cognitive and behavioral support materials only affected attitudes towards pedometer use. Practice implications: More research is needed to investigate the effect of combining pedometer use with support materials on a longer time base and in less motivated people. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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