v1 Chapter 5: Study 3 - Protocol

More like this

Variation In Development In the World

by Lookesh Panirselvam

Philosophical Foundations, Conceptions of Curriculum, and Curricular Designs

by Y Zlotnik

The importance of moving with young children in early childhood settings.

by Chloe Heslington

History Chapter 2

by Noe Htat

Miss a whole other diamond (iteration) / principles of relationship building...

Chapter 5: Study 3 - Protocol

Intervention Design Process

Measures of Change / Analysis

The Behaviour Change Wheel

STEP 3: Develop Behaviour change techniques

Describe and justify techiques: Consequences / Environmental cues and promps / instruction on how to perform a behaviour / self-monitoring / social support

Descriptive norms (Kim et al., 2017 PA; Preibe & Spink, 2011 SB)

Raising awareness - sitting invisible (Gardner et al., 2019)

STEP 2: Intervention functions

Feasibility of options through shift shadowing

Present options to steering group, with consideration of criteria

Discuss, justify and agree options with supervisory team

Identify what you want intervention to do: Modelling behaviour / changing habits

STEP 1: COM-B: Selecting what the intervention is aiming to do and how it is doing it

Discussing / justifying focus with supervisory team

Identify what needs to be changed

Defining the problem

Discussion

Chapter 6??

Changing personnel (6 month role rotation?)

Introduction

4. Design Processes

Review of potential processes to design interventions See O'Cathain et al., 2019 (8) processes

Combined approach (8)

Needs to be formal?

Implementation based (4) RE-AIM

MacDoanld et al., 2018 systematic review Low adoption and maintenance reported

Theory driven (3)

BCW + Widely used, BCTs comparable - Need to make MoA & causal pathways clear - Final decision with researcher

Koykka et al., 2019 (Action planning - habits)

+ Multiple theories - BCW, TPB, IM + Paid attention to context (teachers)

Descriptions of co-design principles office setting

Efficiency based (5) Stand Up Victoria

Hadgraft et al., 2016 Qual

Hadgraft et al., 2017 RCT -> Need to understand interpersonal infl

-> Bryne et al., 2020 need context to advance field Miller et al., 2019 review

Dunstan et al., 2013 Protocol - Measures

Neuhaus et al., 2014 + Iterative development + Multi-level, multi-component

-> Bryne et al., 2020 need causal pathways MoA (Carey et al., 2018), need to isolate BCT effects (Hagger et al., 2020)

Double Diamond (1 - Partnership)

Target population-centred (2) Participatory

SMArT Work

Edwardson et al., 2018 RCT + Effective long-term - Support measure broad

Munir et al., 2015 Protocol + Systematic BCW + Support through researcher

How as important as what! e.g., Hardcastle et al., 2017

5. Aim and Objectives of the chapter

O'Cathain et al., 2019: Development = whole process of int developmet Design = Point in process where developers decide content, format, delivery

AIM: To assess the feasibility of an intervention to reduce sitting time in police control room workers

OBJ 3:

OBJ 2: To use the Behaviour Change Wheel to design an intervention that reduces sitting time in police control room workers

OBJ 1: To use a co-design approach to develop an acceptable and feasible solution to prolonged sitting in the control room context

3. Theoretical underpinning

Howlett et al., 2020 COM-B and TPB predictive validity

Habit strength

Behavioural regulation, Social influences

- Theory is only one approach Research lending from PA?

1. Wellbeing in Police

Non-operational staff e.g., control room overlooked

Highlighting the issue: Sedentary behaviour

Impacts on wellbeing

Impacts on health

2. Worksite interventions to decrease sitting

Exertime = in police context

Cooley et al., (2014)

+ Qualitative follow-up

Quite a few qual studies: Dewitt et al., 2019 (need org support)

Mainsbridge et al., (2020)

+ Exertime Tasmanian Police + Mood (POMS-SF Vigor and Fatigue) N.S., Stress (PSQ-Op&Org) Org decreased. + 13 week post-test, 26 week washout - PSQ-Op? - Small sample - Lack theoretical underpinning needed e.g. BCW

Pedersen et al., (2013) Mainsbridge et al., (2014)

+ Blood pressure, calories - No follow up

Stephenson et al., 2017 most freq: Prompts and cues Self-monitoring Social support (unspecified) Goal setting (beh) -> Need improved reporting

Shrestha et al., 2018 Cochrane review ->Sit-stand desks not effective