背景:在青春期从事体力活动(PA)有益于健康和积极发展。然而,大多数青春期女孩的PA水平较低,并且需要在课余时间进行干预。本试点随机对照试验旨在探讨三种不同的远程PA干预措施对增加少女中度至重度PA(MVPA)的初步有效性。健身和社会心理结果。
方法:生活在英国或爱尔兰的女孩,年龄在13至16岁之间,他们希望增加他们的活动水平,有资格参加这项研究。使用随机数生成器,参与者(n=153;14.8y±1.4)被随机分为三个12周干预组之一(i)PA计划,(二)行为改变支持,或(iii)联合PA计划和行为改变支持,或(Iv)比较组。结果测量包括加速度计和自我报告的PA,身体健康(心肺健康;20米穿梭跑,肌肉耐力;向上推,肌肉力量;跳远),和社会心理评估(感知能力;身体欣赏;自尊;行为调节)。线性混合模型用于分析每个干预组和对照组在干预后立即(12周)和随访(干预后3个月)之间的差异。同时调整潜在的混杂因素。
结果:参与PA计划组与更高的感知能力相关(0.6,95%CI0.1至1.2),干预后确定的调节(0.7,95%CI0.2至1.1)和内在动机(0.9,95%CI0.2至1.6)。参与行为改变组与干预后更高的感知能力相关(0.6,95%CI0.1至1.2),3个月随访时的俯卧撑得分较高(4.0,95%CI0.0至7.0)。联合组的参与也与干预后更高的感知能力相关(0.8,95%CI0.2至1.4),3个月随访时的俯卧撑得分较高(5.0,95%CI1.0至8.0)。在干预组和对照组之间没有发现其他显着差异。
结论:结果表明,所有干预组的感知能力都有所提高,而PA计划小组在短期内增强了自主动机。具有行为改变支持的干预手臂在提高肌肉耐力方面最有希望。然而,为了更好地了解组间差异以及干预组对MVPA和适应性的影响,需要进行更大规模的试验,考虑到样本量小和短期随访。
BACKGROUND: Engaging in physical activity (PA) during adolescence is beneficial for health and positive development. However, most adolescent
girls have low PA levels, and there is a need for interventions outside of school hours. This pilot randomised controlled trial aimed to explore the preliminary effectiveness of three different remote PA interventions in increasing adolescent
girls\' moderate-to- vigorous PA (MVPA), fitness and psychosocial outcomes.
METHODS: Girls living in the UK or Ireland, aged between 13 and 16 years old, who wished to increase their activity levels, were eligible for the study. Using a random number generator, participants (n = 153; 14.8y ± 1.4) were randomised into one of three 12-week intervention groups (i) PA programme, (ii) Behaviour change support, or (iii) Combined PA programme and Behaviour change support, or (iv) a Comparison group. Outcome measures included accelerometer and self-reported PA, physical fitness (cardiorespiratory fitness; 20 m shuttle run, muscular endurance; push up, muscular strength; long jump), and psychosocial assessments (perceived competence; body appreciation; self-esteem; behavioural regulation). Linear mixed models were used to analyse differences between each intervention arm and the comparison group immediately postintervention (12 weeks) and at follow up (3-months post-intervention), while adjusting for potential confounders.
RESULTS: Participation in the PA programme group was associated with higher perceived competence (0.6, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.2), identified regulation (0.7, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.1) and intrinsic motivation (0.9, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.6) at post-intervention. Participation in the Behaviour change group was associated with higher perceived competence at post-intervention (0.6, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.2), and higher push-up scores at the 3-month follow-up (4.0, 95% CI 0.0 to 7.0). Participation in the Combined group was also associated with higher perceived competence at post-intervention (0.8, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.4), and higher push-up scores at the 3-month follow-up (5.0, 95% CI 1.0 to 8.0). No other significant differences were found between the intervention arms and the comparison group.
CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest perceived competence increased across all intervention arms, while the PA programme group enhanced autonomous motivation in the short term. Intervention arms with behaviour change support appear most promising in improving muscular endurance. However, a larger scale trial is needed for a better understanding of between-group differences and the impact of intervention arms on MVPA and fitness, given the small sample size and short-term follow-up.