Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Date

9-22-2013

Journal

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

Volume

Volume 10

Inclusive Pages

Article number 109

Abstract

Background

Little research has explored who responds better to an automated vs. human advisor for health behaviors in general, and for physical activity (PA) promotion in particular. The purpose of this study was to explore baseline factors (i.e., demographics, motivation, interpersonal style, and external resources) that moderate intervention efficacy delivered by either a human or automated advisor.

Methods

Data were from the CHAT Trial, a 12-month randomized controlled trial to increase PA among underactive older adults (full trial N = 218) via a human advisor or automated interactive voice response advisor. Trial results indicated significant increases in PA in both interventions by 12 months that were maintained at 18-months. Regression was used to explore moderation of the two interventions.

Results

Results indicated amotivation (i.e., lack of intent in PA) moderated 12-month PA (d = 0.55, p < 0.01) and private self-consciousness (i.e., tendency to attune to one’s own inner thoughts and emotions) moderated 18-month PA (d = 0.34, p < 0.05) but a variety of other factors (e.g., demographics) did not (p > 0.12).

Conclusions

Results provide preliminary evidence for generating hypotheses about pathways for supporting later clinical decision-making with regard to the use of either human- vs. computer-delivered interventions for PA promotion.

Comments

Reproduced with permission of BMC International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Peer Reviewed

1

Open Access

1

Download

Share

COinS