Multiple Risk Expert Systems Interventions: Impact of Simultaneous Stage-Matched Expert System Interventions for Smoking, High-Fat Diet, and Sun Exposure in a Population of Parents.

Cancer Prevention Research Center, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881-0808, USA.
Health Psychology (Impact Factor: 3.59). 10/2004; 23(5):503-16. DOI: 10.1037/0278-6133.23.5.503
Source: PubMed


Three stage-based expert system interventions for smoking, high-fat diet, and unsafe sun exposure were evaluated in a sample of 2,460 parents of teenagers. Eighty-four percent of the eligible parents were enrolled in a 2-arm randomized control trial, with the treatment group receiving individualized feedback reports for each of their relevant behaviors at 0, 6, and 12 months as well as a multiple behavior manual. At 24 months, the expert system outperformed the comparison condition across all 3 risk behaviors, resulting in 22% of the participants in action or maintenance for smoking (vs. 16% for the comparison condition), 34% for diet (vs. 26%), and 30% for sun exposure (vs. 22%). Proactive, home-based, and stage-matched expert systems can produce significant multiple behavior changes in at-risk populations where the majority of participants are not prepared to change.

Download full-text


Available from: Wayne F Velicer,
  • Source
    • "Study 1. Study 1 included parents from another schoolbased study who were at risk for any of three risk behaviors , including dietary fat. The original sample and outcomes are described elsewhere (Prochaska et al., 2004 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This research examined dynamic transtheoretical model (TTM) constructs for dietary fat reduction. This secondary data analysis pooled three large population-based TTM-tailored school, worksite, medical, and home-based intervention studies and examined use of constructs across three groups organized by longitudinal progress (dynatypes): Maintainers, Relapsers, and Stable Non-Changers. The criteria for successful change, at the time, were that less than 30% of calories came from fat. A total of 2,718 adults met criteria for an unhealthy diet at baseline. The majority of participants were female, White, married, and middle-aged. Demographics, Stage of Change, Processes of Change, Decisional Balance, and Temptations were measured. Dynatype groups were assessed with reliable and valid scales assessing constructs at baseline and 6, 12, and 24 months. Analyses included a multivariate analysis of variance followed by a series of analyses of variance, with Tukey follow-up tests assessing differences in use of TTM constructs across the three groups at each time point. Relapsers and Maintainers were similar in their use of all TTM Processes of Change at baseline, with the exception of Self-Liberation (η(2) = 0.15, p < .001) and Reinforcement Management (η(2) = 0.01, p < .001). Although Relapsers reverted to an unhealthy diet, their overall greater use of Processes of Change suggests that their behaviors and strategy use remain better than that of the Stable Non-Changer group. Results suggest that specific cognitive and behavioral constructs may contribute differentially to intervention outcomes.
    Health Promotion Practice 08/2015; DOI:10.1177/1524839915606423 · 0.55 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The intervention effect was considerably smaller (0.12 points) than that reported in the U.S. SCAPE intervention (Glanz et al., 2010) (0.23 points) where intervention delivery was via a tailored mail intervention package . However, other studies using telephone-delivered intervention sessions, similarly achieved only small improvements in sunscreen use, and no significant change in sun avoidance (Head et al., 2013; Prochaska et al., 2004). Armstrong et al.'s intervention was more successful using SMS-delivered reminders with a significant increase in the proportion of participants who dispensed sunscreen daily (56%) compared to control (30%) (Armstrong et al., 2009 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective. To test the impact of a theory-based, SMS (text message)-delivered behavioural intervention (Healthy Text) targeting sun protection or skin self-examination behaviours compared to attention control. Method. Overall, 546 participants aged 18-42 years were randomised using a computer-generated number list to the skin self-examination (N = 176), sun protection (N = 187), or attention control (N = 183) text messages group. Each group received 21 text messages about their assigned topic over 12 months (12 weekly messages for 3 months, then monthly messages for the next 9 months). Data were collected via telephone survey at baseline, 3, and 12 months across Queensland from January 2012 to August 2013. Results. One year after baseline, the sun protection (mean change 0.12; P = 0.030) and skin self-examination groups (mean change 0.12; P = 0.035) had significantly greater improvement in their sun protection habits (SPH) index compared to the attention control group (reference mean change 0.02). The increase in the proportion of participants who reported any skin self-examination from baseline to 12 months was significantly greater in the skin self-examination intervention group (103/163; 63%; P < 0.001) than the sun protection (83/173; 48%) or attention control (65/165; 36%) groups. There was no significant effect of the intervention for participants' self-reported whole-body skin self-examination, sun tanning, or sunburn behaviours. Conclusion. The Healthy Text intervention was effective in inducing significant improvements in sun protection and any type of skin self-examination behaviours.
    Preventive Medicine 12/2014; 71. DOI:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.12.009 · 3.09 Impact Factor
    • "Additionally, electronically delivered interventions have demonstrated comparable efficacy to other intervention modalities such as printed feedback (Elliott, Carey, & Bolles, 2008). Attempts to target multiple risk behaviors using individualized interventions have had some success (Prochaska et al., 2004), although, to our knowledge, no studies have attempted to target both high-risk drinking and smoking among college students. To date, only one locatable study has used a daily intervention in combination with ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to target alcohol use in college student drinkers (Weitzel, Bernhardt, Usdan, Mays, & Glanz, 2007). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Nearly all college student smokers also drink alcohol, and smoking and heavy episodic drinking (HED) commonly co-occur. However, few studies have examined the factors that concurrently influence smoking and HED among college students and, to date, no interventions have been developed that target both HED and smoking in this population. The objective of the current study was to develop and evaluate a mobile feedback intervention that targets HED and smoking. Participants (N = 94) were non-treatment-seeking college students (Mage = 20.5 years, SD = 1.7) who engaged in at least a single HED episode in the past 2 weeks and reported concurrent smoking and drinking at least once a week. Participants were randomized to receive either the mobile intervention for 14 days, complete mobile assessments (without intervention) for 14 days, or complete minimal assessments (without intervention or mobile assessments). At a 1-month follow-up, compared with the minimal assessment condition, we observed significant reductions in the number of cigarettes per smoking day in both the mobile intervention (d = 0.55) and mobile assessment (d = 0.45) conditions. Among those randomized to the mobile intervention, receiving more modules of the intervention was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of any drinking during the 14-day assessment period and significant reductions in smoking at 1-month follow-up. The mobile intervention did not result in significant reductions in HED or concurrent smoking and drinking. Future research should continue to examine ways of using technology and the real-time environment to improve interventions for HED and smoking. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
    Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 07/2014; 28(3). DOI:10.1037/a0034747 · 2.09 Impact Factor
Show more