How Does the Understanding, Experience, and Enactment of Self‐Regulation Behaviour Change Techniques Vary with Age? A Thematic Analysis

Abstract

Background Self‐regulatory behaviour change techniques (BCTs) appear less effective in promoting physical activity amongst older than younger adults. This study aimed to identify reasons for this by examining how participants of different ages understand, experience, and use these BCTs. Methods Twelve participants (aged 39–75) in a walking intervention study were interviewed twice: immediately post‐intervention and 3 months later to examine understanding and enactment of self‐regulation BCTs. Thematic analysis was used, organised using the framework approach. Results Participants acknowledged the importance of setting realistic goals and found pedometers useful. In older adults, the use of goal setting was influenced by previous experience in work settings of this BCT. Occupational status appeared to influence the participants' responses to action planning, irrespective of age, with retired participants preferring not to restrict themselves to specific times. Self‐monitoring with diaries appeared to be more useful in assisting the memory of older adults. For most BCTs, differences in understanding and enactment were apparent according to participant age. Conclusions Problems with using self‐regulation BCTs were apparent, which appeared more common with older adults. Occupational status, cognitive status, or a perceived lack of value of physical activity or of some BCTs are all promising explanations that warrant further investigation.

What makes implementation intentions (in)effective for physical activity among older adults?

“…According to French et al. (2014, French, Banafa, Williams, Taylor, Brown, 2020), this may be due to two reasons. First, planning might be cognitively difficult for older adults.…”

“…Participants who openly expressed reactance toward IIs were the minority. Reactance should still be assessed in future studies (e.g., Ungar, Sieverding, Schweizer, & Stadnitski, 2015) along with potential moderators (e.g., personality, history of planning biography, previous experiences with planning; Engel & Kuhl, 2015; French et al., 2020).…”

“…However, including IIs in complex interventions was negatively related to PA outcomes for older adults (French et al, 2014). According to French et al (2014, French, Banafa, Williams, Taylor, Brown, 2020, this may be due to two reasons. First, planning might be cognitively difficult for older adults.…”

“…This rejection might have been linked with a lower need to plan. It has been suggested that retirees have more leisure time and more flexible schedules (French et al, 2014(French et al, , 2020 and/or less conflicting goals due to fewer obligations (Riediger, Freund, & Baltes, 2005). Some studies also report that retirees highly value flexibility, prefer internal/mood cues (e.g., 'if I feel energetic') and exercise habitually (French et al, 2020).…”

“…It has been suggested that retirees have more leisure time and more flexible schedules (French et al, 2014(French et al, , 2020 and/or less conflicting goals due to fewer obligations (Riediger, Freund, & Baltes, 2005). Some studies also report that retirees highly value flexibility, prefer internal/mood cues (e.g., 'if I feel energetic') and exercise habitually (French et al, 2020). The lack of time is, however, still amongst the most prominent barriers for PA during retirement (Moschny, Platen, Klaassen-Mielke, Trampisch, & Hinrichs, 2011).…”