Promoting physical activity through text messages: the impact of attitude and goal priority messages

Figures & data

Figure 1. CONSORT flow diagram of study participants.

Figure 2. Main effect of attitude messages on attitude.

Figure 3. Main effect of attitude messages on intention.

Figure 4. Main effect of attitude messages on PA.

Note: There were no significant differences between conditions at baseline.

Table 1. Pooled descriptive means of attitude, goal priority, intention and PA assessed by message condition (N = 289).

	Attitude only (n = 71)	Goal priority only (n = 72)	Attitude & goal priority (n = 73)	Control (n = 73)	Total (N = 289)
Attitude
T0	5.82 (0.97)	5.41 (1.14)	5.68 (1.19)	5.65 (1.02)	5.64 (1.09)
T1	5.90 (0.88)	5.43 (1.02)	5.71 (1.05)	5.51 (1.07)	5.63 (1.02)
T2	5.64 (1.04)	5.13 (1.20)	5.56 (1.17)	5.09 (1.23)	5.36 (1.19)
Goal priority
T0	3.91 (1.28)	3.62 (1.34)	3.80 (1.31)	3.72 (1.30)	3.76 (1.31)
T1	4.09 (1.27)	3.88 (1.25)	4.15 (1.32)	3.78 (1.47)	3.97 (1.34)
T2	4.23 (1.22)	3.98 (1.33)	4.11 (1.30)	3.73 (1.39)	4.01 (1.32)
Intention
T0	5.36 (1.22)	4.73 (1.76)	5.21 (1.52)	5.02 (1.46)	5.08 (1.52)
T1	5.26 (1.32)	4.72 (1.48)	5.27 (1.28)	4.48 (1.63)	4.93 (1.47)
T2	5.11 (1.32)	4.49 (1.51)	5.00 (1.21)	4.32 (1.54)	4.73 (1.44)
PA
T0	0.12 (0.89)	−0.10 (0.94)	0.03 (0.90)	−0.05 (0.90)	0.00 (0.91)
T1	0.21 (0.85)	−0.07 (0.85)	0.24 (0.87)	−0.19 (0.90)	0.04 (0.89)
T2	0.11 (0.88)	−0.15 (0.83)	0.23 (0.81)	−0.17 (0.88)	0.00 (0.87)

Figure 5. A statistical diagram of the serial multiple mediator model for the impact of attitude messages on PA through attitude and intention.

Note: **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, TSQ, upon reasonable request.