Effects of dyadic planning on physical activity in couples: A randomized controlled trial.

Abstract

Findings revealed the complexity of effects of dyadic planning on behavior change. Adding relationship quality to the equation clarified effects of DPC and IPC on physical activity. (PsycINFO Database Record

Inter‐Relations between Partner‐Provided Support and Self‐Efficacy: A Dyadic Longitudinal Analysis

“…This study represents secondary analyses of a larger randomised controlled trial with couples. Results of the randomised controlled trial had been already published elsewhere (Knoll et al., ; trial registration #NCT01963494, https://clinicaltrials.gov/). The primary goal of the randomised controlled trial was to examine whether a dyadic planning intervention is more effective than an individual planning intervention and a dyadic control condition in helping couples change their daily physical activity (for the short‐term results please see Knoll et al., ).…”

“…Results of the randomised controlled trial had been already published elsewhere (Knoll et al., ; trial registration #NCT01963494, https://clinicaltrials.gov/). The primary goal of the randomised controlled trial was to examine whether a dyadic planning intervention is more effective than an individual planning intervention and a dyadic control condition in helping couples change their daily physical activity (for the short‐term results please see Knoll et al., ). One week after a baseline assessment (T0), the intervention session took place (Time 1 [T1]), where couples were randomly assigned to one of the three experimental groups and also randomly received a specific study role (partner or target person; for more details, see Knoll et al., ).…”

“…The primary goal of the randomised controlled trial was to examine whether a dyadic planning intervention is more effective than an individual planning intervention and a dyadic control condition in helping couples change their daily physical activity (for the short‐term results please see Knoll et al., ). One week after a baseline assessment (T0), the intervention session took place (Time 1 [T1]), where couples were randomly assigned to one of the three experimental groups and also randomly received a specific study role (partner or target person; for more details, see Knoll et al., ). Follow‐up measures took place 1 week (T2, postal), 6 (T3, lab), 19 (T4, postal), 26 (T6, postal) and 52 weeks (T7, lab) after the intervention (T1).…”

“…From overall N = 346 couples included in the study, n = 338 couples were randomised to intervention arms (see Figure ) and included in the current study. Predominantly reactive techniques were used for recruitment (flyers, newspaper announcements; see Knoll et al., ). Only heterosexual romantic couples who reported a relationship duration of at least 6 months were included in the sample.…”

Self‐Control, Plan Quality, and Digital Delivery of Action Planning for Condom and Contraceptive Pill Use of 14–24‐Year‐Olds: Findings from a Clinic‐Based Online Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial

“…An as yet unexplored area of investigation with regard to action planning in the context of safer sex behaviour is the effect of dyadic planning. Research looking at the effects of action planning on physical activity behaviour has identified that making a plan with a partner is linked to higher levels of plan enactment (Keller et al., ; Knoll et al., ). Consideration of social aspects of planning including dyadic planning has also been recommended as a priority for future research in the field of action planning and implementation intentions (Hagger et al., ).…”