Abstract
BackgroundWith an increasing research focus on multiple health behaviour change interventions, a methodological issue requiring further investigation is whether or not to employ pre-trial behavioural screening to exclude participants who are achieving a pre-specified level of one or more behaviours. Behavioural screening can be used to direct limited resources to participants most in need of a behaviour change intervention; but may reduce the representativeness of the sample and limit comparability with trials that do not employ pre-trial behavioural screening. Furthermore, the impact of this type of screening on intervention participation and intervention effects is unknown.MethodsData for this study come from the Logan Healthy Living Program, a randomised, controlled telephone counselling lifestyle intervention trial which did not employ behavioural screening prior to randomisation. Screening for physical activity, diet or the combination was simulated using baseline trial data. To examine the impact of behavioural screening on intervention participation (in terms of participant characteristics, intervention dose received and retention), characteristics of participants included an excluded under the various screening scenarios were compared. To examine the impact of behavioural screening on intervention effects, results from the main trial analysis were compared with results obtained from the same analyses performed separately for each of the screened groups.ResultsSimulated pre-trial behavioural screening impacted minimally on intervention dose received and trial retention rate. Beyond the anticipated effect of reducing baseline levels of the behaviours being screened for, behavioural screening affected baseline levels of behaviours not targeted by screening, and participants' demographic and health-related characteristics. Behavioural screening impacted on intervention effects in ways that were anticipated and positive, but also unexpected and detrimental. Physical activity screening (alone or in combination with diet) resulted in improved intervention effects for physical activity, while fruit and vegetable screening had no impact on intervention effects for these outcomes. All three types of screening impacted detrimentally on intervention effects for behaviours not being targeted by screening.ConclusionsBehavioural screening may have desirable and undesirable consequences in the context of multiple behaviour intervention trials, and thus its potential merits and pitfalls should be carefully considered.
Highlights
With an increasing research focus on multiple health behaviour change interventions, a methodological issue requiring further investigation is whether or not to employ pre-trial behavioural screening to exclude participants who are achieving a pre-specified level of one or more behaviours
Screening out participants who are already engaging in a particular behaviour may result in a sample that is potentially more resistant to change in the absence of an intervention [8], thereby potentially reducing the likelihood of control group improvements and their attenuation of intervention effects
We examined all intervention trials identified in a recent systematic review [10], plus all literature published from January 2006 until June 2009 that matched this review’s selection criteria
Summary
With an increasing research focus on multiple health behaviour change interventions, a methodological issue requiring further investigation is whether or not to employ pre-trial behavioural screening to exclude participants who are achieving a pre-specified level of one or more behaviours. Screening out participants who are already engaging in a particular behaviour may result in a sample that is potentially more resistant to change in the absence of an intervention [8], thereby potentially reducing the likelihood of control group improvements and their attenuation of intervention effects Another reason for employing behavioural screening prior to the commencement of an intervention trial is that it can be used to direct limited resources to participants for whom behaviour change is a greater public health priority (i.e., those who are not currently achieving a prespecified level of the target behaviours) [9]. The downside of such exclusions is that study samples may become less representative of the sampling frames from which they were drawn, reducing the generalisability of study findings
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.