The features of interventions associated with long-term effectiveness of physical activity interventions in adults aged 55–70 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Content, delivery and effects of physical activity (PA) interventions are heterogeneous. There is a need to identify intervention features (content and delivery) related to long-term effectiveness. Behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and modes of intervention delivery were coded in 19 randomised controlled trials included in a systematic review of PA interventions for adults aged 55–70 years, published between 2000 and 2010, with PA outcomes ≥12 months after randomisation; protocol registration: PROSPERO CRD42011001459. Meta-analysis, moderator analyses and meta-regression were conducted. Meta-analysis revealed that interventions were effective in promoting PA compared with no/minimal intervention comparators [d = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.19–0.40, I² = 79.8%, Q-value = 89.16 (df = 18, p < 0.01)]. Intervention features often concurred and goal setting was the most commonly used BCT. Subgroup analyses suggested that interventions using the BCT feedback may be more effective, whilst interventions using printed materials or the BCTs information on where and when to perform the behaviour and information on consequences of behaviour to the individual may be less effective. Meta-regression revealed that neither the number of BCTs nor self-regulatory BCTs significantly related to effect size. Feedback appears to be a potentially effective candidate BCT for future interventions promoting long-term PA. Considering concurrence of intervention features alongside moderator analyses is important.

Keywords:

• behaviour change techniques
• modes of delivery
• physical activity intervention
• meta-analysis
• moderators

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all authors who provided further data and additional intervention materials.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article can be accessed here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2015.1012177

Notes

1. An incidence matrix shows the relationship between two factors, which in this case is each trial and each intervention feature. The incidence matrix uses ‘1’ to show when a feature was used in a trial and ‘0’ to show when a feature was not used. This matrix is multiplied by its transpose (i.e., where the incidence matrix rows are interchanged with columns) which produces the concurrence matrix.

Additional information

Funding

This work is part of the LiveWell programme. LiveWell is supported by the Lifelong Health and Wellbeing initiative (LLHW) [grant number G0900686]. The LLHW initiative is a funding collaboration between the UK Research Councils and Health Departments. The funding partners are: Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates, National Institute for Health Research/The Department of Health, The Health and Social Care Research & Development of the Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), and Wales Office of Research and Development for Health and Social Care, Welsh Assembly Government.