Evaluation of a Serious Self-Regulation Game Intervention for Overweight-Related Behaviors ("Balance It"): A Pilot Study.
BACKGROUND
Serious games have the potential to promote health behavior. Because overweight is still a major issue among secondary vocational education students in the Netherlands, this study piloted the effects of "Balance It," a serious self-regulation game intervention targeting students' overweight-related behaviors: dietary intake and physical activity (PA).


OBJECTIVE
We aimed to pilot the effects of Balance It on secondary vocational education students' dietary intake and PA.


METHODS
In total, 501 secondary vocational education students participated at baseline (intervention: n=250; control: n=251) in this pre-post cluster randomized trial. After 4 weeks, at immediate posttest, 231 students filled in the posttest questionnaire (intervention: n=105; control: n=126). The sample had a mean age of 17.28 (SD 1.26, range 15-21) years, 62.8% (145/231) were female, and 26.8% (62/231) had a non-Dutch background. Body mass index (BMI kg/m2) ranged from 14.4 to 31.1 (mean 21.1, SD 3.3). The intervention and control groups were compared on the primary (behavioral) outcomes of dietary intake (fruit and vegetable consumption, snack consumption, and soft drink consumption) and PA (moderate and vigorous). Additionally, we explored (1) differences between the intervention and control groups in determinants of dietary intake and PA, including attitude, self-efficacy, intention, barrier identification, action planning, and action control, and (2) differences between active (intervention) users and the control group in dietary intake, PA, and associated determinants.


RESULTS
After corrections for multiple testing, we did not find significant differences between the intervention group and control group in terms of dietary intake, PA, and determinants of dietary intake and PA. Exploratory research indicated that only 27.6% (29/105) of the intervention group reported actual intervention use (ie, active users). For exploratory reasons, we compared the active users (n=29) with the control group (n=124) and corrected for multiple testing. Results showed that active users' snack consumption decreased more strongly (active users: mean change=-0.20; control group: mean change=-0.08; beta=-0.36, P=.01, R2change=.05), and their use of active transport had a stronger increase (active users: mean change=0.92; control group=-0.12; beta=1.58, P=.02, R2change=.03) than the control group. Results also revealed significant differences in action planning (active users: mean change=0.42; control group: mean change=0.07; beta=0.91, P=.01, R2change=.04) and action control (active users: mean change=0.63; control group: mean change=-0.05; beta=1.25, P=.001, R2change=.08) in terms of unhealthy eating.


CONCLUSIONS
The Balance It intervention did not show favorable effects on dietary intake and PA compared to the control condition. However, only a small number of people in the intervention condition actually used Balance It (27.6%). Exploratory analyses did suggest that, if used as planned, Balance It could contribute to changing dietary intake and PA behaviors, albeit it remains debatable whether this would be sufficient to prevent overweight.
TNO, Life Style, Leiden, Netherlands. jorinde.spook@wur.nl.
Jorinde
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1286-2479
J
Spook
Theo
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4978-6246
T
Paulussen
Gerjo
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3501-4096
G
Kok
Pepijn
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9809-7650
P
van Empelen
Balance It; dietary intake; effect evaluation; health promotion; physical activity; prevention and control; self-regulation; serious game
Prev Med. 2010 Sep-Oct;51(3-4):214-21
20558196
Science. 2003 Feb 7;299(5608):853-5
12574618
Prev Med. 2014 Dec;69:95-107
25172024
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 Apr;27(4):514-21
12664085
Ann Behav Med. 2011 Feb;41(1):104-18
20878293
J Pediatr Psychol. 2007 Jan-Feb;32(1):80-9
16601255
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015 Mar 18;12 :39
25890060
Am J Prev Med. 2008 Jan;34(1):74-82
18083454
Ann Behav Med. 2006 Jun;31(3):205-23
16700634
Health Psychol. 2009 Nov;28(6):690-701
19916637
JMIR Res Protoc. 2014 Jul 23;3(3):e31
25057122
Health Psychol. 2008 May;27(3):379-87
18624603
Health Educ Behav. 2011 Feb;38(1):49-62
21189422
J Med Internet Res. 2013 Sep 24;15(9):e214
24067298
J Med Internet Res. 2011 Jan 06;13(1):e2
21212045
Health Educ Behav. 2000 Feb;27(1):96-111
10709795
BMJ. 2004 May 15;328(7449):1166
15142921
Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 Jun;75(6):971-7
12036801
Games Health J. 2015 Oct;4(5):387-400
26181575
Am J Prev Med. 2011 Jan;40(1):33-8
21146765
J Hum Nutr Diet. 2001 Oct;14 (5):377-90
11906579
Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2004 Dec;18(6):1125-46
15561643
BMC Public Health. 2010 Oct 27;10:649
20979603
BMC Public Health. 2008 Apr 28;8:142
18442370
Games Health J. 2012 Jun;1(3):199-204
24416639
Biol Psychiatry. 2003 Aug 1;54(3):330-7
12893108
Am J Prev Med. 2003 Jan;24(1):52-61
12554024
Obes Rev. 2011 May;12(5):e298-314
21348921
J Med Internet Res. 2010 Sep 02;12(3):e37
20813716
Ann Behav Med. 2013 Aug;46(1):19-30
23436276
Br J Soc Psychol. 2006 Mar;45(Pt 1):87-106
16573874
Public Health Nutr. 2007 Sep;10(9):927-38
17381954
Health Educ Res. 2008 Jun;23(3):427-39
18209115
Fam Pract. 2010 Jun;27 Suppl 1:i23-32
19293400
Psychol Health. 2009 Sep;24(7):805-22
20205028
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003 Aug;157(8):733-8
12912777