Using guidance from the reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation, and maintenance evaluation framework, we aimed to qualitatively evaluate the participant experiences of a workplace high-intensity interval training (HIIT) intervention. Twelve previously insufficiently active individuals (four males and eight females) were interviewed once as part of three focus groups. Perceptions of program satisfaction, barriers to and facilitators of adherence, and persistence to exercise were explored. HIIT initiates interest because of its novelty, provides a sense of accomplishment, and overcomes the barriers of perceived lack of time. The feeling of relatedness between the participants can attenuate negative unpleasant responses during the HIIT sessions. HIIT, in this workplace setting, is an acceptable intervention for physically inactive adults. However, participants were reluctant to maintain the same mode of exercise, believing that HIIT sessions were for the very fit.
Search Results
You are looking at 11 - 12 of 12 items for
- Author: Cecilie Thøgersen-Ntoumani x
- Refine by Access: All Content x
Florence-Emilie Kinnafick, Cecilie Thøgersen-Ntoumani, Sam O. Shepherd, Oliver J. Wilson, Anton J.M. Wagenmakers, and Christopher S. Shaw
Nikos L. D. Chatzisarantis, Vassilis Barkoukis, Panagiotis Petridis, Cecilie Thøgersen-Ntoumani, Nikos Ntoumanis, Sandra Gountas, John Gountas, Dimitrios Adam, and Martin S. Hagger
Previous research documented that “extremely high prioritization” strategies that involved allocation of all resources for time or energy on pursuing goals related to leisure-time physical activity and none of available resources on competing behavioral goals were optimal in terms of yielding highest levels of participation in physical activities. This study examined whether a “marginally higher prioritization” strategy that involved an intention to invest large but slightly more resources on physical activity than competing behaviors was optimal. In addition, we examined whether linear and quadratic models supported different conclusions about optimal prioritizations strategies. Response surface analyses of a quadratic model revealed that marginally higher prioritization was the most effective strategy. In addition, a linear regression model led us to incorrectly reject a “simultaneous goal pursuit” strategy in favor of an extremely high prioritization strategy. Findings suggest that prioritization strategies that “garner” low opportunity costs are the most optimal.
