Compliance with accelerometer wear instructions
Reliable and valid assessment is necessary when evaluating whether public health policies or interventions change physical activity (PA) levels in the target group. Little consensus exists about what to measure, when, with what and for how long in PA research [
1,
2]. While an inability of individuals to accurately remember their past PA and social desirability are clear problems with self-reported PA measures [
3], objective measurements of PA (e.g. pedometers and accelerometers) have issues too. Zhuang et al. [
4] found that missing accelerometry data was more common in 15- to 17-year-olds than among younger participants, especially during weekends (Sundays in particular), with missing data occurring increasingly from the first recording day to the last. This exemplifies a key issue in measurement: the proportion of an individual’s day or week captured by the measure. An extreme example would be an individual, who only wears the measurement device when undertaking PA. Thus, some guidelines suggest that a person should wear an accelerometer for a minimum of 10 h daily for at least 4 days in a 7-day measurement period in order to obtain an accurate reading of PA [
1,
2]. Participants’ compliance with instructions on wearing the accelerometer is clearly very important in obtaining accurate PA measurements [
5].
Research on enhancing accelerometer instruction compliance rates is rare [
2,
6], particularly among older adolescents. One strategy has been monetary incentives contingent on proper wear-time [
7]. Sallis et al. [
8] used an alternative strategy, asking participants to re-wear the accelerometer if they had not worn it for at least 5 valid days (> 10 valid hours of data) or a minimum of 66 valid hours across 7 days.
Barak et al. [
9] suggest that new opportunities to promote compliance—such as text messaging (SMS; Short Messaging Service)—may be more reliable and effective than traditional methods, such as written or verbal wear instructions by the investigator. Zhuang et al. [
4], too, recommend SMS reminders. Toftager et al. [
10] used SMS reminders to increase compliance but did not report effects or acceptability. In a self-selected Irish sample of adolescents [
11], daily SMS reminders were associated with putting on the accelerometer in the morning, but not in increased overall compliance (defined as valid days of data or minutes of non-wear). The study did not report levels of wear or effects of the reminders. The discrepancy between remembering to put on the device and actually wearing it for a sufficient amount of time indicates that these may be separate behaviors.
Compliance and the ‘because-heuristic’
Since the classic “Xerox machine study” by Langer, Blank and Chanowitz [
12], providing reasons for compliance has been discussed in the social influence literature. The study indicated that placebic or pseudo-reasons [
13] (“
Excuse me, I have 5 pages. May I use the xerox machine, because I have to make copies?”; 93% compliance) could result in similar compliance rates as actual reasons (“[…]
because I’m in a rush?”; 94% compliance) compared to the request only condition (“
Excuse me, I have 5 pages. May I use the xerox machine”; 60% compliance). Pratkanis (2007), identified “placebic reasons” in his index of social influence tactics, but called for further research into the subject. Less careful are Cialdini, Goldstein and Martin [
14], who tout the “unique motivational influence of the word
because”, basing their claims on the importance of reasoning in social influence. To this day, the xerox machine study remains cited in the press as an example of the power of the word ‘because’ [
15‐
18].
A well-known principle of human behavior says that when we ask someone to do us a favor we will be more successful if we provide a reason. People simply like to have reasons for what they do. [
19]
Following the terminology used by Key, Edlund, Sagaring and Bizer [
20], the phenomenon of increased compliance by providing reasons is referred to as “the because-heuristic.” Let us accordingly define the
naïve because-heuristic as “reasons increase compliance.”
In the Langer, Blank and Chanowitz study 1, this effect of reasons increasing compliance was only found when the confederate asked for ‘a
small favor’ (five instead of ten pages, translating to effect sizes of d = 0.87 and d = 0.13, respectively) [
12]. Still, the results in general, as well as their implications have been questioned [
21,
22]. A study by Folkes suggests, that instead of the size of the request, the effect is moderated by controllability [
21]. Pooling Folkes’ reason conditions results to an effect size of d = − 0.026, speaking against the quote above, and pointing out that the “power of reasons” effect is malleable, in the least.
To our knowledge, only one published direct replication of the Langer, Blank and Chanowitz study 1 exists [
20]. The main effect of the study replicated (d = 0.67 for placebic over no reason and d = 0.69 for real over no reason conditions), although over 20% (34 out of 163) of the participants needed to be excluded for various reasons. Lack of published replication studies, of course, is not new in the field of psychology [
23].
In a conceptual replication of the phenomenon, in small request conditions, reasons (either placebic or real) increased compliance by an equivalent of d = 0.43 (calculated from Table 1 of [
24]) when including their additional persuasion group and d = 0.22 when excluding it. Another conceptual replication [
25] found d = 0.15 for requests perceived as small, and d = 0.21 for requests perceived as large (as calculated from Figure 3 of [
25]).
These studies seem to temper earlier claims for the power of reasons in increasing compliance. In contrast to the naïve because-heuristic, let us define the weak because-heuristic as “reasons increase compliance, but only if the perceived favour is small”.
This study will investigate the effects of the because heuristic on compliance with the physical activity measurement procedures in the context of baseline measurements of a large school-based intervention.
The Let’s Move It cluster randomized trial
Inadequate PA predicts increased morbidity and mortality in people of low socioeconomic status (SES) [
26], with SES differences in PA emerging already in adolescence [
27]. Finnish vocational school students are less physically active than those in high school [
28]. The Let’s Move It intervention aimed to increase PA and decrease sedentary behaviors in older adolescents in vocational schools.
The current study was conducted as a sub-study of the cluster randomised effectiveness evaluation trial of the Let’s Move It intervention [
29]. In a preceding feasibility study [
30], participants’ accelerometer wear times were suboptimal; 47% (18/38) of baseline participants reached the cutoff of 10 h per day for at least 4 days, 63% (17/27) for the first and 75% (9/12) for the second follow-up. A frequently cited explanation for not wearing the accelerometer was forgetting to put on the device.
Aims and hypotheses
In this within-trial study, we investigate SMS-reminder strategies to improve the duration of accelerometer wear time. The literature cited previously lead us to hypothesise that reminders would increase accelerometer wear time and that citing reasons would amplify the effect. In addition to daily wear hours, we are interested in the number of days our participants provide valid activity data (i.e. days of ≥10 h of activity data). The target behavior is thus twofold: 1) putting on the accelerometer in the morning for as many days as possible, 2) wearing the accelerometer for as long as possible in the waking hours each day. In this study, two main research questions are posited:
1.
Are SMS-reminders associated with greater accelerometer wear times?
The current study investigated this by comparing the compliance rates across a) participants who opted to receive SMS reminders to wear their accelerometer, and b) participants who opted not to receive the reminders (non-randomised control group). If forgetting is an important reason for non-compliance, in the absence of intervening factors, reminders should increase compliance.
Statistical hypothesis H
1: Those who receive SMS reminders will have higher accelerometer wear times than those who do not.
2.
Does offering reasons to comply affect accelerometer wear time?
If reasons increase compliance, SMS reminders containing reasons to wear an accelerometer should lead to greater compliance.
Statistical hypothesis H2: Those who receive reasons in the SMS reminders have more minutes of accelerometer wear and more days of valid data (≥10 h of activity) than those who do not receive reminders containing a reason.
An additional research question, on whether providing reasons to comply with accelerometer wear increases trial retention, is omitted here. These null results are reported in [
31].