1. Natalie Gjerstad, Jusztina Kovács, Orsolya Dóra Dankó, Žan Pudgar
How does Self-Determination Theory compared to related interventions, affect increase physical activity in the community?
Natalie Gjerstad, Jusztina Kovács, Orsolya Dóra Dankó, Žan Pudgar

3. Just for fun  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOKP0wgDftQ

5. PICO P: random population/community
I: SDT (Self-Determination Theory), contains the important of individual needings of motivations to do physical activities
C: incomperison to related interventions
O: increase of physical activity

6. Suitable Strategies
Social marketing through local mass media (TV, radio, newspaper).
Other communication strategies (posters, flyers, information booklets, web sites, maps).

7. Individual counselling by health professionals.
Working with voluntary, government, and non-government organisations, including sporting clubs, to encourage participation in walking, other activities, and events.

8. Working within specific settings such as schools, workplaces, aged care centres, community centres, homeless shelters, and shopping malls. This may include settings that provide an opportunity to reach disadvantaged persons.
Environmental change strategies such as creation of walking trails and infrastructure with legislative, fiscal, policy requirements and planning (having ecological validity) for the broader population.

10. Self-determination theory
Two kind of motivation
Three physical needs
Autonomy
Relatedness
Competence
Context of helath behavior witg changing PA
Just PA  brush teeth, wear seat belt not too autonom
Motivational determinants + SDT  powerful  can change a lot of thing

11. Involves objective awards
Motivation
Intrinsic
Own shake
Challenges
Enjoyment
Extrinsic
Involves objective awards
Intrinsic motivation – most important
Highest level of SDT – could increase PA

12. Treatment (intervention vs control) Perceived Need Support
Need Satisfaction
Behavioral Regulations Motivation
Behavior Regulations (e.g. physical activity, diet)
Psychological Functioning (e.g. depression quality of life)

13. Comparison (I.)
Review number one - 25 included trials, as opposed to three included trials in review number two.
Results: Effects measured in the reviews vary
Probable bias not addressed in the second review

14. Comparison (II.)
Interventions --> A more narrow approach.
Formalities, included/excluded trials, search terms ++
Is the second review reliable?

16. References:
Baker PRA, Foster CE, Francis DP, Soares J, Weightman A (2011) Cochrane database of systematic reviews 12/2011
Fortier et al Promoting physical activity: development and testing of self-determination theory-based interventions. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2012, 9:20

17. Thank you for your attention!