scholarly journals A Qualitative Perspective on Multiple Health Behaviour Change: Views of Smoking Cessation Advisors Who Promote Physical Activity

2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma S. Everson-Hock ◽  
Adrian H. Taylor ◽  
Michael Ussher ◽  
Guy Faulkner

AbstractThere are mixed views on whether smoking cessation advisors should focus only on quitting smoking or also promote simultaneous health behaviour changes (e.g., diet, physical activity), but no studies have qualitatively examined the views and vicarious experiences of such health professionals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 trained smoking cessation advisors who promote physical activity to their clients. The data were categorised into themes using thematic analysis supported by qualitative data analysis software. We report themes that were related to why advisors promote multiple health behaviour change and issues in timing. Physical activity could be promoted as a cessation aid and also as part of a holistic lifestyle change consistent with a nonsmoker identity, thereby increasing feelings of control and addressing fear of weight gain. Multiple changes were promoted pre-quit, simultaneously and post-quit, and advisors asserted that it is important to focus on the needs and capabilities of individual clients when deciding how to time multiple changes. Also, suggesting that PA was a useful and easily performed cessation aid rather than a new behaviour (i.e., structured exercise that may seem irrelevant) may help some clients to avoid a sense of overload.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edurne Zabaleta-del-Olmo ◽  
Marc Casajuana-Closas ◽  
Tomàs López-Jiménez ◽  
Haizea Pombo ◽  
Mariona Pons-Vigués ◽  
...  

Abstract Background This aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of: a) a Multiple Health Behaviour Change (MHBC) intervention on reducing smoking, increasing physical activity and adherence to a Mediterranean dietary pattern in people aged 45-75 years compared to usual care; and b) an implementation strategy. Methods A cluster randomised effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial type 2 with two parallel groups was conducted in 25 Primary Health Care centres (3062 participants): 12 centres (1481 participants) were randomised to the intervention and 13 (1581 participants) to the control group (usual care). The intervention focused on all target behaviours and used individual, group and community approaches. The implementation strategy was based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and a set of discrete implementation strategies which included planning, educating, financing, restructuring and managing quality. Data were analysed using generalised linear mixed models, accounting for clustering. A mixed methods data analysis was used to evaluate implementation outcomes (adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility and fidelity) and determinants of implementation success. Results MHBC was greater in the intervention (14.5%) than in the usual care group (8.9%). The overall adoption rate by professionals was 48.7. Early and final appropriateness were perceived by professionals as moderate. Early acceptability was high, whereas final acceptability was only moderate. Initial and final acceptability as perceived by the participants was high, and appropriateness moderate, with a lower initial than final appropriateness perception. Consent and recruitment rates were 82.0% and 65.5%, respectively, intervention uptake was 89.5% and completion rate 74.7%. The global value of percentage of approaches with fidelity ≥ 50% was 16.7%. Eight CFIR constructs distinguished between high and low implementation, five of them corresponding to the Inner Setting domain. Conclusions Compared to usual care, the EIRA intervention was more effective in promoting MHBC. Implementation outcomes were satisfactory except for the fidelity to the planned intervention which was low. The organisational and structural contexts of the centres proved to be significant determinants of implementation effectiveness. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03136211. Registered 2 May 2017, “retrospectively registered”: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03136211


Author(s):  
Amanda Baker ◽  
Sarah Hiles ◽  
Louise Thornton ◽  
Amanda Searl ◽  
Peter Kelly ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahra M. Clayborne ◽  
Ian Colman

Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to examine associations between depression and several measures of health behaviour change across 8 cycles of a population-based, cross-sectional survey of Canadians. The secondary objective of this study was to describe the prevalence of the types of health behaviour changes undergone/sought and types of barriers to change reported, comparing those with and without depression. Methods: The sample comprised 65,801 respondents to the Canadian Community Health Survey between 2007 and 2014. Past-year depression was assessed via structured interview (CIDI-SF). Measures of health behaviour change included recent changes made, desire to make changes, and barriers towards making changes. Analyses involved logistic regression, with estimates across cycles pooled using fixed-effects meta-analyses. Pooled prevalences of types of health behaviour changes undergone/sought and types of barriers to change experienced were reported, and associations with depression were examined. Results: Depression was associated with higher odds of reporting a recent health behaviour change (pooled odds ratio [OR] = 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30 to 1.48), desire to make health behaviour changes (pooled OR = 1.61; 95% CI, 1.49 to 1.74), and barriers towards change (pooled OR = 1.54; 95% CI, 1.44 to 1.65). The most common change undergone and sought was increased exercise; the most common barrier reported was a lack of willpower. Conclusions: Individuals dealing with depression are more likely to report recent health behaviour changes and the desire to make changes but are also more likely to report barriers towards change.


2015 ◽  
Vol 72 (4) ◽  
pp. 356-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan L. Hammersley ◽  
Veronica R. Cann ◽  
Anne-Maree Parrish ◽  
Rachel A. Jones ◽  
David J. Holloway

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
pp. 228
Author(s):  
Angel Marie Chater ◽  
Lindsey Smith ◽  
Louise Ferrandino ◽  
Kev Wyld ◽  
Daniel P Bailey

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document