Evaluation of an internet-based physical activity intervention: a preliminary investigation

The Internet has the potential for delivering innovative, interactive physical activity (PA) interventions to large numbers of people. This study was designed to test the efficacy of an Internet intervention that consisted of a Web site plus 12 weekly e-mail tip sheets, compared with a waiting list...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Annals of behavioral medicine 2003-04, Vol.25 (2), p.92-99
Main Authors: Napolitano, Melissa A, Fotheringham, Michael, Tate, Deborah, Sciamanna, Christopher, Leslie, Eva, Owen, Neville, Bauman, Adrian, Marcus, Bess
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Computer-Assisted Instruction - methods
Electronic Mail
Exercise
Female
Health Promotion - methods
Health psychology
Humans
Internet
Internet access
Male
Motivation
Motor Activity
Older people
Patient Education as Topic
Pilot Projects
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Rhode Island
Treatment Outcome
Websites
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The Internet has the potential for delivering innovative, interactive physical activity (PA) interventions to large numbers of people. This study was designed to test the efficacy of an Internet intervention that consisted of a Web site plus 12 weekly e-mail tip sheets, compared with a waiting list control group. The Internet intervention was theory based and emphasized clear, graphical presentation of PA information. Sixty-five (30 intervention and 35 control) sedentary adult employees of several large hospitals (9 men and 56 women) were randomly assigned to 1 of the 2 study arms. Of the 65 participants, 57 completed the 1-month follow-up, and 52 completed the 3-month follow-up. At both 1 and 3 months, those in the intervention group were significantly more likely to have progressed in stage of motivational readiness for PA than participants in the control group: 1 month, c2(1, N =52) =4.05, p
ISSN:0883-6612
1532-4796
DOI:10.1207/s15324796abm2502_04