Associations Between Social Cognitive Determinants and Movement-Related Behaviors in Studies Using Ecological Momentary Assessment Methods: Systematic Review

Abstract

Background The social cognitive framework is a long-standing framework within physical activity promotion literature to explain and predict movement-related behaviors. However, applications of the social cognitive framework to explain and predict movement-related behaviors have typically examined the relationships between determinants and behavior across macrotimescales (eg, weeks and months). There is more recent evidence suggesting that movement-related behaviors and their social cognitive determinants (eg, self-efficacy and intentions) change across microtimescales (eg, hours and days). Therefore, efforts have been devoted to examining the relationship between social cognitive determinants and movement-related behaviors across microtimescales. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a growing methodology that can capture movement-related behaviors and social cognitive determinants as they change across microtimescales. Objective The objective of this systematic review was to summarize evidence from EMA studies examining associations between social cognitive determinants and movement-related behaviors (ie, physical activity and sedentary behavior). Methods Studies were included if they quantitatively tested such an association at the momentary or day level and excluded if they were an active intervention. Using keyword searches, articles were identified across the PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and PsycINFO databases. Articles were first assessed through abstract and title screening followed by full-text review. Each article was screened independently by 2 reviewers. For eligible articles, data regarding study design, associations between social cognitive determinants and movement-related behaviors, and study quality (ie, Methodological Quality Questionnaire and Checklist for Reporting Ecological Momentary Assessment Studies) were extracted. At least 4 articles were required to draw a conclusion regarding the overall associations between a social cognitive determinant and movement-related behavior. For the social cognitive determinants in which a conclusion regarding an overall association could be drawn, 60% of the articles needed to document a similar association (ie, positive, negative, or null) to conclude that the association existed in a particular direction. Results A total of 24 articles including 1891 participants were eligible for the review. At the day level, intentions and self-efficacy were positively associated with physical activity. No other associations could be determined because of conflicting findings or the small number of studies investigating associations. Conclusions Future research would benefit from validating EMA assessments of social cognitive determinants and systematically investigating associations across different operationalizations of key constructs. Despite the only recent emergence of EMA to understand social cognitive determinants of movement-related behaviors, the findings indicate that daily intentions and self-efficacy play an important role in regulating physical activity in everyday life. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42022328500; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=328500

Role of Chinese Acupuncture in the Treatment for Chemotherapy-Induced Cognitive Impairment in Older Patients With Cancer: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

“…Participants complete follow-up assessments at baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks after randomization, which include the MoCA, Digit Span Test, QoL, and multiple functional assessments. Additionally, participants are prompted to complete ecological momentary assessments [22] twice weekly throughout the 2-month postrandomization period. The study flow diagram is shown in Figure 1.…”

The Specification of a Computational Model of Physical Activity Habit

“…For example, the social cognitive theory (18,19) postulates that self-efficacy and outcome expectations impact behavior through goals. This static level of theory does well to describe between-person differences between those who are more or less active (e.g., (20)), but not when applied to within-person assessments of the day-to-day life experiences (21). How can we expect this generic, static representation of theory to describe the complexity of how, or to what extent, a person adjusts to evolving expectations following failed attempts to meet goals, for example?…”