Understanding for whom, under what conditions, and how group-based physical activity interventions are successful: a realist review

Abstract

BackgroundParticipation in group-based physical activity (GBPA) interventions has been found to result in higher levels of exercise adherence and program compliance. However, previous reviews of GBPA programs have provided limited insight regarding ‘for whom’, ‘under what conditions’, and ‘how’ these interventions increase physical activity behavior.MethodsA realist review was conducted by following the seven recommended iterative and overlapping steps (J Health Serv Res Policy 10S1:21-34, 2005). The review was limited to group dynamics-based interventions for adults (>17 years of age). The search was conducted in PubMed, PsychInfo, and Web of Science search engines associated with the Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, and MEDLINE.ResultsUsing a realist review approach, data from 52 studies were synthesized. Of those, 92 % (n = 48) reported significant increases in participant physical activity. The synthesis resulted in three main observations and recommendations.DiscussionGBPA interventions have worked for a variety of populations, including those who are hard to reach; however, more research is needed on moderating factors to determine for whom different GBPA programs may be effective. Second, previous interventions have varied in the duration, frequency, and number of group-based strategies used, and comparative effectiveness research may be necessary to isolate the mechanisms of effect. Third, these interventions have been conducted in a diverse range of settings, using a variety of research designs and analytical approaches. Less information is known about the costs or sustainability of these programs in their intended settings.ConclusionThe results of this realist review have important implications for practice, refining trial designs, and replication across diverse populations and settings.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2270-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Identifying change processes in group-based health behaviour-change interventions: development of the mechanisms of action in group-based interventions (MAGI) framework

“…Group-based interventions are widely used to promote health and to support health-related behaviour change. Systematic reviews show that such interventions can be effective, for example, in increasing physical activity (Hanson & Jones, 2015;Harden et al, 2015), supporting weight loss (Borek, Abraham, Greaves, & Tarrant, 2018) and smoking cessation (Stead, Carroll, & Lancaster, 2017;West et al, 2010), and improving self-management of type 2 diabetes (Odgers-Jewell et al, 2017), cancer (Smith-Turchyn, Morgan, & Richardson, 2016) and other chronic conditions (Foster, Taylor, Eldridge, Ramsay, & Griffiths, 2007). For example, a meta-analysis of 24 group-based weight-loss interventions showed a mean difference in weight loss between control and intervention groups of −3.44 kg (95% CI [−4.23, −2.85]; p < .001) at 12 months .…”

How do Small Groups Promote Behaviour Change? An Integrative Conceptual Review of Explanatory Mechanisms

“…Evidence of the effectiveness of group-based behaviour-change interventions (GB-BCIs) is accumulating through systematic reviews and meta-analyses. For example, GB-BCIs have been found effective in smoking cessation (Stead & Lancaster, 2009;West, Walia, Hyder, Shahab, & Michie, 2010), promoting physical activity (Harden et al, 2015) and walking (Hanson & Jones, 2015), diabetes self-management (Deakin, McShane, Cade, & Williams, 2009;Steinsbekk, Rygg, Lisulo, Rise, & Fretheim, 2012), self-management among cancer patients (Smith-Turchyn, Morgan, & Richardson, 2016), and weight loss (Borek, Abraham, Greaves, & Tarrant, 2018). Despite encouraging evidence, GB-BCIs exhibit substantial, largely unexplained cross-intervention heterogeneity in effectiveness and considerable variability in design (e.g.…”

In It Together: A Qualitative Evaluation of Participant Experiences of a 10-Week, Group-Based, Workplace HIIT Program for Insufficiently Active Adults

“…A group based intervention approach has been successful in a variety of populations, and in particular for physically inactive individuals (Kassavou, Turner, & French, 2013) . However, the degree of efficacy depends on other (moderating) factors (Harden et al, 2015). Specifically, group based interventions are thought to be more successful if the members interact, identify as a unit and express a degree of cohesiveness towards accomplishing goals (Burke, Carron, Eys, Ntoumanis, & Estabrooks, 2006).…”

“…Participants in the current HIIT group were able to self-monitor their exercise intensity throughout each session and were asked to attend a specified number of sessions per week (Shepherd et al, 2015). Self-monitoring and goal setting (Piwek, Joinson, & Morvan, 2015), in particular in a group setting, can facilitate adherence to exercise (Harden et al, 2015). Music has been shown to enhance enjoyment during exercise sessions (Karageorghis & Priest, 2012) and specifically during sprint intervals (Stork, Kwan, Gibala, & Martin Ginis, 2015).…”