Physically inactive population is a big problem in the US. While most people spend significant amount of their time in workplaces, workplace physical activity interventions seem more rationale. According to the literature, SCT and TPB have most commonly been used theories to achieve that behavior change process in workplaces. Also, workplaces use those theories to evaluate their existing physical activity interventions and those interventions’ cost-effectiveness.
Dunstan et al. (2013) used Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) and designed a 3-month multi-level intervention in office setting to reduce sedentary time of employees while promoting physical activity during work hours. Also, they determined three different time-point (0-months/baseline, 3-months/post intervention, 12-months/follow-up) to evaluate the effectiveness of the program in the long term. They created one control and one randomized intervention conditions with 160 office employees from 16 different worksites, but from the same organization. Since authors developed a program which includes multiple levels of influences (ecological, individual, and organizational) on the behavior when draw a framework for the method, …show more content…
Even if they did not add to the list, according to explanations of intervention elements, it is easily understood that reciprocal determinism also used in a 3-month intervention period. Interestingly, the authors did not give any good reasons why they choose particularly those specific constructs, and did not choose the rest. They mentioned from SCT only ones under Intervention title, and did not mention from it again. Since the study did not addressed all constructs of SCT in developing the interventions, but inspired by SCT, it can be said that this study is guided by theory (SCT) instead of being
Dunstan et al. (2013) used Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) and designed a 3-month multi-level intervention in office setting to reduce sedentary time of employees while promoting physical activity during work hours. Also, they determined three different time-point (0-months/baseline, 3-months/post intervention, 12-months/follow-up) to evaluate the effectiveness of the program in the long term. They created one control and one randomized intervention conditions with 160 office employees from 16 different worksites, but from the same organization. Since authors developed a program which includes multiple levels of influences (ecological, individual, and organizational) on the behavior when draw a framework for the method, …show more content…
Even if they did not add to the list, according to explanations of intervention elements, it is easily understood that reciprocal determinism also used in a 3-month intervention period. Interestingly, the authors did not give any good reasons why they choose particularly those specific constructs, and did not choose the rest. They mentioned from SCT only ones under Intervention title, and did not mention from it again. Since the study did not addressed all constructs of SCT in developing the interventions, but inspired by SCT, it can be said that this study is guided by theory (SCT) instead of being