Evaluate and critique the paper by De Cocker, De Bourdeaudhuij and Cardon (2008) and how it has contributed to the understanding and changing of health behaviour using theory

Question 1

Intro

Answer 1

• De Cocker, De Bourdeaudhuij and Cardon (2008)
• aims
• theory
• participants

Question 2

Paragraph 1

Answer 2

• SCT, Bandura (1986)
• Support materials
• did not refine theory
• which construct
• De Cocker et al, not all components
• socio-economic factors

Question 3

Paragraph 2

Answer 3

• Action- outcome expectancies/attitudes
• close ended questions
• not previously validated

Question 4

Paragraph 3

Answer 4

• Self-efficacy/behavioural Capability
• cheap and accessible
• measured seperately
• motivation subset

Question 5

Paragraph 4

Answer 5

• De Cocker et al
• Attitude Differences
• Combined constructs

Question 6

Paragraph 5

Answer 6

• behaviour
• valid measure
• Tudor-Locke and Myers (2001)
• adherence not measured
• Bravata et al (2007)
• short term effects
• factorial design

Question 7

Paragraph 6

Answer 7

• IPAQ
• Craig et al (2003)
• De Cocker et al, PA, 84% motivated, week 1 (9291+/-3526)-> week 3 (10010+/-3250)

Question 8

Paragraph 7

Answer 8

• support
• Vallance et al (2007)
• Dinger et al (2007) - TTM
• Chan, Ryan and Tudor-Locke (2004)

Question 9

Conclusion

Answer 9

• Overall results

- relevant to…

Question 10

De Cocker et al (Paragraph 1)

Answer 10

did not discuss results in terms of theoretical basis of intervention

Question 11

De Cocker et al (Paragraph 4)

Answer 11

• attitudes
• the brochure resulted in more positive attitudes towards pedometer use
• more willing to wear for longer/buy one
• more likely to know the 10000 steps/day recommendation

Question 12

Tudor-Locke and Myers (2001)

Answer 12

pedometers are practical, accurate and acceptable tools for measuring physical activity and providing motivation.

Question 13

Bravata et al (2007)

Answer 13

-systematic review
-pedometers successful motivators of physical activity and lead to significant increases in physical activity of 26.9%
e-short term effects
-full-factorial design

Question 14

Craig et al (2003)

Answer 14

IPAQ is a reliable and valid measure

Question 15

De Cocker et al (Paragraph 6)

Answer 15

• difference in PA and step count between conditions
• 84% in condition + motivated to increase PA
• trend that condition + reported influence on step count/walking level.
• not significant (week 1 9291+/-3526 -> week 3 10010 +/-3250)
• PA did increase
• sensitized for steps or walking, increased engagement in PA

Question 16

Vallance et al (2007)

Answer 16

just pedometer use was more effective in increasing moderate/vigorous PA and walking.

Question 17

Dinger et al (2007)

Answer 17

• full factorial design

- no differences in levels of walking between email delivered support/pedometer/combo/control.

Question 18

Chan, Ryan and Tudor-Locke (2004)

Answer 18

After using the Prince Edward Island-First step program that aimed to increase PA through increasing knowledge of benefits of PA, learning to initiate health behaviour to achieve new activity goals and learning strategies to overcome relapse, they found that there was an increase in PA in sedentary workers.