INTRODUCTION

1. An Evaluation of a Home-Based Intervention, Based on the Social Cognitive Theory, to Promote Physical Activity in Adults. Melinda K. Everman-Moore, PhD, C.H.E.S. Rick Petosa, PhD Janet Buckworth, PhD Physical Activity and Educational Services, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210 INTRODUCTION Incentives Keychain Pedometer Jump Rope Hand Weight $10/Posttest $10/ Follow-Up Packet Introduction Types of Fitness ACSM Recommendations Weight Management Injury Prevention Community Resources Envelope Phone Prompts Weekly Goal Setting Self-Monitoring (via exercise logs) Feedback RESULTS & DISCUSSION Self-Efficacy • Home-based physical activity programs are characterized by a self-directed program in which participants are not required to attend a structured exercise class. • Majority of home-based articles, compared a structured exercise program to an home-based exercise program. • Few home-based studies utilize theoretical constructs or behavior modification techniques. • DAYS OF MODERATE & DAYS OF VIGOROUS PHYSICAL ACTIVITY • Days of moderate physical activity significantly increased from 2 days at pretest to 4 days at posttest. Although below the 2007 ACSM moderate activity recommendations, 2 days per week may have a significant impact on health • The 2X3 ANOVA revealed a significant interaction for days of vigorous physical activity-however, the interaction was due to outliers. • Days of vigorous physical activity remained stable, about 1 day per week. • SELF-EFFICACY • The Take Control group maintained self-efficacy from pretest to follow-up. • Self-Efficacy continues to fall for the Just Move group from pretest to follow-up. • Only 1 worksheet designed to increase Self-Efficacy. May be enough exposure to maintain self-efficacy, but not enough exposure to increase self-efficacy. • Self-Efficacy may take time to develop, thus studies may need to longer in duration. • SELF-REGULATION • For the Take Control group, self-regulation significantly increased from pretest to posttest and then from posttest to follow-up. • Though not significant, self-regulation continues to increase throughout the study. • The Take Control group significantly increased self-regulation above that of the Just Move group at posttest and follow-up. • Both groups participated in goal setting and self-monitoring via exercise logs, thus self-regulation increase throughout the study for both groups. • The Take Control group received multiple worksheets designed to increase self-regulation, thus this group had a greater increase. • SOCIAL SUPPORT (FRIENDS & FAMILY) • Take Control nor the Just Move intervention did not have an effect on Social Support-Family. • The 2X3 ANOVA revealed a significant group effect for Social Support-Friend. • SS-family and SS-friend did not result in practical significant difference at any time frame (pre/post, post/fup) or between the groups. At all measurement times, the average response was a “2-rarely” (on a scale from 1-5). SIMILARITIES Purpose Statement Self-Regulation The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Take Control intervention to promote days of physical activity among adults, compared to standard education intervention (Just Move). TAKE CONTROL (SCT) JUST MOVE (AHA) Definitions • Self-Efficacy: • Confidence to Overcome Barriers • Self-Regulation: • The ability to self-monitor one’s own behavior; Measure the use of techniques • Social Support – Family/Friends: • Rating how often a family member/friend has done a particular supportive event. • Free Living Physical Activity • Not supervised; Not given a specific exercise prescription • “Day” based on 2007 ACSM recommendations • Moderate: 30 minutes/single bout • Vigorous: 20 minute/single bout SCT- based Worksheets: Exercise Preference Change Your Environment Exercise Comfort Zone Overcoming Barriers Time Management Social Support New Exercise Activity Long Term Maintenance Injury Prevention AHA Brochures Just Move Exercise & Your Heart DIFFERENCES METHODS Figure 1. Diagram of Components of the Take Control and Just Move Interventions • Study Design: • Quasi-experimental, non-equivalent comparison group • Pretest, Posttest, Follow-Up (6 week intervention, 4 week follow-up) • Take Control (Social Cognitive Theory) (n=34) • Just Move (standard education intervention- AHA) (n=28) • Participants in the Take Control group received weekly SCT-based worksheets and exercise logs that were delivered to their home. Upon completion, worksheets and exercise logs were picked up at the designated date from their home. • Participants in the Just Move group received two AHA brochures: Exercise & Your Heart and Just Move as well as exercise logs. INSTRUMENTS All instruments have established validity and reliability Self-efficacy- Garcia and King (1991) Self-regulation – Petosa (1993) Social support -Trieber, Baranowski, Braden, and colleagues (1991). Physical Activity 7-day recall – Petosa (1993) Demographics

2. Figure 6: Plot of the Means for Social Support-Family Results from the 2X3 ANOVA: NS Interaction, Time effect, & Group effect • Figure 3: Plot of Means for Days of Vigorous Physical Activity • Results from the 2X3 ANOVA • *Significant Interaction • (F=3.414, p<.05, ES=.056, Power=.590) • Figure 2: Plot of the Means for Days of Moderate Physical Activity • Results from the 2X3 ANOVA • *Significant Time Effect • (F=13.794, p<.001, ES=.192, Power=.998) Figure 7: Plot of the Means for Social Support-Friend Results from the 2X3 ANOVA: + Significant Group Effect: F=6.82, p<.05, ES=.106, Power=.731 Figure 5: Plot of the Means for Self-Regulation Results from the 2X3 ANOVA: *Significant Time Effect: F=14.12,p<.001, ES=.039, Power=.464 + Significant Group Effect: F=4.87, p<.05, ES=.078, Power=.584 Figure 4: Plot of the Means for Self-Efficacy Results from the 2X3 ANOVA: NS = Interaction, Time effect, & Group effect