Low participation rates (1–31%) and unique barriers to strength training (e.g., specialized knowledge, equipment, perceived complexity) suggest effective strength training interventions may differ from effective aerobic or general physical activity interventions. The purpose of this scoping review was to examine interventions used to improve strength training participation through mapping theory, intervention characteristics, prescription parameters, and behaviour change techniques.
Recommendations by Levac et al. (2010) and PRISMA-ScR were followed in the conduct and reporting of this review, respectively. Patients and exercise professionals participated in developing the research question and data extraction form, interpreting the findings, and drafting the manuscript. Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and PubMed databases (inception–December 2020) were searched. The inclusion criteria were (a) original peer-reviewed articles and grey literature, (b) intervention study design, and (c) behavioural interventions targeted towards improving strength training participation. Two reviewers performed data screening, extraction, and coding. The interventions were coded using the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy version 1. Data were synthesized using descriptive and frequency reporting.
Twenty-seven unique interventions met the inclusion criteria. Social cognitive theory (n = 9), the transtheoretical model (n = 4), and self-determination theory (n = 2) were the only behaviour change theories used. Almost all the interventions were delivered face-to-face (n = 25), with the majority delivered by an exercise specialist (n = 23) in community or home settings (n = 24), with high variability in exercise prescription parameters. Instructions on how to perform the behaviour, behavioural practice, graded tasks, goal setting, adding objects to the environment (e.g., providing equipment), and using a credible source (e.g., exercise specialist delivery) comprised the most common behaviour change techniques.
Citation: Ma JK, Leese J, Therrien S, Hoens AM, Tsui K, Li LC (2022) A scoping review of interventions to improve strength training participation. PLoS ONE 17(2): e0263218. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263218
Editor: Lisa Susan Wieland, University of Maryland School of Medicine, UNITED STATES
Received: September 3, 2020; Accepted: January 17, 2022; Published: February 3, 2022
Copyright: © 2022 Ma et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is available in the supplementary files and in the Open Science Framework repository, https://osf.io/dyxsq/?view_only=12ff9dbc56dc46e4916d83fda21048e4.
Funding: JM is supported by the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Trainee Award (#17936), the Arthritis Society Post-Doctoral Fellowship (TPF-18-0209), and the Canadian Institute of Health Research Post-Doctoral Fellowship (201910MFE-430114-231890). LL is supported by the Harold Robinson/Arthritis Society Chair in Arthritic Diseases award, the Canada Research Chair Program, and the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research. Funding bodies did not play a role in the study collection, analysis, interpretation of the data, or writing of the manuscript. Funder websites: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/193.html https://www.msfhr.org https://arthritis.ca.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
International physical activity guidelines for public health recommend that adults and older adults should engage in muscle strengthening activities at least twice weekly [1–4]. Strength training involves the use of resistance (e.g., machines, body weight, resistance bands, free weights) to increase muscular strength. Regular strength training can provide benefits to cardiometabolic health such as lowering blood lipids , blood pressure , and risk for Type II diabetes [7, 8], and has been shown to reduce anxiety , depressive symptoms , and all-cause mortality [11, 12]. It plays a crucial role in protecting older adults’ continued independence and cognitive and physical functioning [13, 14]. The positive effects of strength training on multiple health outcomes across diverse populations underline the importance of treating the improvement of strength training participation rates as a valuable public health target.
Although the health benefits of strength training are known, population-level engagement is low, with only 1–31% of individuals (varying across countries as well as general and patient populations) meeting current strength training guidelines [15–20]. These rates are considerably lower than those for meeting the current aerobic exercise guidelines (~50%) [21, 22]. The low participation rates in strength training may be attributed to barriers that are observed in both aerobic and strength training (e.g., perceived lack of time, self-efficacy, cost [23, 24]) as well as barriers that are uniquely experienced when participating in strength training [25, 26]. Strength training is often perceived as complex, requiring specialized equipment and specific knowledge, and targeted at athletes [25, 27–29]. When compared to aerobic activities like walking, the perceived knowledge and effort required to effectively perform strength training (e.g., specific technique, how much strength training to do, how to progress, time needed, cost of equipment) can be discouraging [25, 27, 28]. Interventions targeting strength training may therefore require different behaviour change strategies than those targeting aerobic exercise or strength training combined with other physical activities.
Several reviews have synthesized general physical activity behaviour change interventions across diverse populations [30–32]; however, no synthesis of interventions specifically targeting strength training participation has been conducted. One systematic review summarized the behavioural, demographic, intrapersonal, interpersonal, and environmental factors associated with participating in strength training  and highlighted potential correlates—such as self-efficacy, intention, affective judgments, self-regulation, and subjective norms—linked to greater strength training behaviour. However, behaviour change interventions are complex, and the mode of delivery, providers, intervention dose, setting, behaviour change techniques (BCTs), and the exercise prescription itself may also influence the effectiveness of an intervention. BCTs, or the ‘active’ ingredients of an intervention , have been extensively summarized across health behaviours such as smoking, diet, and physical activity but have not been examined specifically across strength training interventions [30, 32, 34]. With so many variables to consider when designing strength training participation interventions, it is important to summarize what has been tested to help set a research agenda for intervention development. The purpose of this scoping review was to map the intervention characteristics, prescription parameters, and BCTs used in interventions to improve strength training participation to date.
The PRISMA-ScR Checklist  was used to guide the reporting of this review (S1 File). We followed recommendations for the conduct of scoping reviews by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) with updated recommendations proposed by Levac et al. (2010) [36, 37].
Availability of data and materials.
The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is available in the Open Science Framework repository, https://osf.io/dyxsq/?view_only=12ff9dbc56dc46e4916d83fda21048e4. This protocol was registered at Prospero (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Registration CRD42019120251).
As per recommendations by Levac et al. (2010), the authors iteratively developed the literature search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and data extraction table, and met at the beginning, middle, and final stages of the review process to discuss challenges and insights and ultimately refine the methods. We consulted a medical librarian to develop the literature search strategy. We searched electronic databases for relevant articles and hand-searched trial registries and reference lists of the selected reviews and included studies. Additionally, we consulted content experts in the field to confirm the final list of included studies. The original search included articles published up until February 2019; an updated search was performed in December 2020. We searched the Embase (1974–present), Medline (1946-present), PsycINFO (1987–present), PubMed (1950–present), CINAHL (1937–present), and SPORTDiscus (1837–present) databases using the following keywords (for a sample search strategy see S2 File): (1) Terms for interventions included: ‘intervention stud*’ OR ‘program’ OR ‘curriculum’ OR ‘physical education’ OR ‘promotion’ OR ‘initiative’ OR ‘behaviour change’ OR ‘strateg*’, (2) terms for strength training included: strength training OR resistance training OR muscle strengthening. Grey literature was searched using the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Grey Matters Tool, the first 10 pages of Google search results, and the Obesity Evidence Hub, Fitness Australia, Physiopedia, and National Academy of Sports Medicine websites. Given the resources available, we limited the search to include only articles written in or translated into English.
Eligible studies: (a) were original peer-reviewed articles or grey literature, (b) used any intervention study design, (c) included behavioural interventions targeted towards improving strength training participation, and (d) measured strength training participation, including adherence and attendance, by direct observation, self-reporting, or objective measures. Articles with a measure of strength training participation as an outcome were included to help distinguish behavioural interventions designed to improve strength training participation from interventions designed to improve health outcomes. Non-eligible studies: (a) did not include a strength training–only group, (b) employed interventions targeting multiple health behaviours simultaneously (e.g., diet, self-management, etc.), and (c) assessed health outcomes but did not include strength training behaviour outcomes.
Duplicate articles were removed, and the remaining titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility. Relevant articles had their full texts reviewed for inclusion/exclusion criteria. Reasons for excluding studies are documented in the Open Science Framework repository. The first author (JM) and co-author (STh) screened all the remaining articles independently and resolved discrepancies through discussion. If no consensus was reached, LL acted as third reviewer to resolve discrepancies.
Researchers and patient/healthcare provider partners jointly developed a data extraction form using Microsoft Excel. To calibrate the data extraction methods, JM and STh independently and iteratively extracted eight articles over three meetings to reach consensus in the data charting approach. STh extracted the remaining articles and JM checked the extraction. The following were extracted from each study: study purpose, study design, country, population, sample size, strength training behaviour measure, theory used, intervention mode of delivery, provider, setting, use of group or individual delivery, intervention duration, exercise frequency, intensity, volume, and intervention procedure. Data were then charted to summarize frequencies of the extracted content.
Coding for behaviour change techniques (BCTs).
Interventions were coded for BCTs using the 93 Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1) . Authors JM and JL completed a BCTTv1 online training program and developed and piloted a coding manual (see S3 File) prior to coding (www.bct-taxonomy.com). The BCTTv1 has previously demonstrated support for good inter-coder and test-retest reliability . JM and JL independently coded each study and resolved discrepancies through discussion.
Data analysis and presentation
Quantitative analysis (e.g., frequency analysis) was conducted on study and intervention characteristics and the use of theory. Study prescription parameters were descriptively reported. Behaviour change techniques used in the interventions were mapped on a grid with BCTs on the y-axis and individual studies on the x-axis.
We used the Patient Engagement In Research (PEIR) framework to guide the patient/healthcare provider partners’ involvement at relevant stages of the review process to improve the usability of recommendations to end-users [39, 40]. Specifically, Arthritis Research Canada’s Arthritis Patient Advisory Board ([APAB] a group of advocates who bring lived experience and patient knowledge to research decision making) was consulted to shape the research question. Two patient/clinician partners (AH, KT) contributed to the interpretation of the findings and development of the paper.
Twenty-seven interventions targeted towards improving strength training participation met the eligibility criteria (Fig 1). Full citations of the included studies and their companion protocols or follow-up papers are included in S4 File.
Frequency summaries of study characteristics are provided in Table 1. The study designs were primarily randomized controlled trials, and participant sample sizes ranged from 6  to 3500 participants , with a total of 5973 participants across the 27 interventions. The studies were conducted in five different countries, primarily the United States. Study participants varied from people with medical conditions/chronic diseases (e.g., osteoarthritis, cancer, spinal cord injury, Type II diabetes, cardiac conditions) or who were overweight/obese to adults and older adults who were healthy or with a functional disability. Only one study examined children (<18 years ). No studies examined adults aged <35 years old. In all 27 studies, the number of participants who engaged in strength training fewer than two times/week (current strength training guidelines) at baseline was not defined. A total of 14 studies (in addition to one that employed social marketing principles) used behaviour change theory to guide intervention development. Most studies employed social cognitive theory [44–54]. The others used the transtheoretical model [54–57] or self-determination theory [58–60]. All the studies employed some form of self-report measure to assess strength training behaviour.
Most interventions were delivered via supervised exercise sessions, education sessions, and individual counselling. A variety of individual, group, and mixed (group and individual) delivery settings were employed. Almost all interventions used face-to-face delivery with the exception of Falcon et al. (2014), who used a DVD, and Mailey et al. (2020), who used email and print material. Exercise specialists (under a variety of titles such as personal trainer, fitness instructor, exercise instructor, exercise physiologist, physiotherapist, and kinesiologist) were the most common interventionists. Of the 23 interventions delivered by an exercise specialist, only seven reported the qualification of those professionals. The majority of interventions were delivered in community or home settings. The duration of interventions (classed as any form of contact between participant and intervention deliverer) varied from a single contact to two years, with the most common contact frequency and session duration being 1–2x/week for approximately one hour. For a summary of intervention characteristics, see Table 2. For intervention descriptions (i.e., any contacts made between interventionists and participants), see Table 3.
Prescribed exercise frequencies varied from 1x to 4x/week, with most being 2–3x/week. Volume per session ranged from 1 to 3 sets, at 8–15 reps, for 6–12 exercises, with a variety of intensity metrics prescribed, including the Borg 20- and 10-point Rating of Perceived Exertion, percentage of one repetition maximum, time under tension, self-created intensity metrics, and completion of exercise to momentary muscle failure (Table 3).
Behaviour change techniques
Inter-coder agreement for the BCT coding was 90% (Kappa = 0.95, prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted kappa [PABAK] = 0.97). Kappa values greater than 0.81 are considered ‘almost perfect’ strength of agreement . Studies that employed BCTs in both the intervention and control condition are presented in the Open Science Framework repository without BCTs that were common among both groups.
Of the potential 93 BCTs, 39 were included across the studies. A range of two to 19 BCTs were used within individual studies. The most common BCTs (i.e., those used in at least half of the studies) included instructions on how to perform a behaviour, a credible source, adding objects to the environment, behavioural practice/rehearsal, graded tasks, behavioural goal setting, feedback on behaviour, self-monitoring of behaviour, and practical social support (Fig 2). Coders of this review also explored common themes outside of the BCT taxonomy and found consistent mention of tailoring, fun, and variety as strategies to support the goal of the intervention.
The review identified 27 unique interventions for improving strength training participation conducted to date. Social cognitive theory, the transtheoretical model, and self-determination theory were the only behaviour change theories employed across the studies. Almost all interventions were delivered face-to-face and by an exercise specialist in community or home settings. Instructions on how to perform the behaviour, adding objects to the environment, a credible source, behavioural practice, graded tasks, and goal setting were the most commonly used BCTs and may be core components of interventions to improve strength training participation. The extent to which BCTs and intervention characteristics (or the synergy between them) influence the effectiveness of interventions merits further study. It should also be noted that many other BCTs, intervention characteristics, and theories have yet to be studied.
Use of theory
Social cognitive theory, self-determination theory, and the transtheoretical model were the only behavioural theories applied in the studies in this review. It has been previously supported that theory-based behavioural interventions are more effective than atheoretical interventions [30, 32, 62]. Given that there are over 83 theories of behaviour change, other theories may be suitable, or more suitable, for designing interventions to improve strength training participation . Indeed, within the general physical activity literature, successfully tested theories span the social cognitive, humanistic, dual process, and socioecological theoretical frameworks (for a review, definitions, and example theories within these frameworks see ). To date, the theories tested in changing strength training behaviour fall within the social cognitive (social cognitive theory, transtheoretical model) and humanistic (self-determination theory) frameworks. These theories align with some of the factors previously identified as effective in influencing strength training participation, including self-efficacy (confidence to perform strength training), subjective norms (belief that others support the behaviour), affective judgments (positive or negative feeling states as a result of the behaviour), and intentions . However, they fall short of bridging the intention-behaviour gap (e.g., targeting self-regulation), explaining non-conscious or automatic processes (dual process frameworks), or exploring the role of environmental factors (socioecological frameworks) [25, 64]. While it is too early to make explicit recommendations about which theories to test in the future, it is important to stress at this point that participating in physical activity, including strength training, is complex and likely requires explanation that spans across the socialcognitive, humanistic, dual process, and socioecological theoretical frameworks .
Prescriptions for sets, reps, intensity, and/or progression were highly variable across the studies. No interventions examined the impact of prescription parameters on strength training participation. The perception that strength training prescriptions are complex and must include the use of heavy weights is an acknowledged barrier to participation in strength training [25, 27, 28, 65]. More research is needed to understand how to make strength training prescriptions more accessible (i.e., simple to understand and easy to do). For example, the American College of Sports Medicine in conjunction with the American Heart Association have suggested a minimum prescription of 1 set of 8–12 reps to volitional fatigue of 8–10 resistance exercises that target the major muscle groups . A 10-week strength training program employing these recommendations at varying frequencies among 1619 adults and older adults demonstrated a 95% satisfaction rate with a 91% completion rate . More simplified strength training regimes involving single sets at high intensities, completed in as little as 20 minutes, have also been found to offer benefits that may differ only marginally from the benefits derived from complex weightlifting protocols at the public health level [29, 68, 69]. Furthermore, recent work has challenged mainstream prescription principles such as rep ranges that target strength, hypertrophy, and muscular endurance and suggests that these outcomes may be obtained, and even optimized, across a spectrum of rep ranges . Likewise, performing strength training to failure vs. non-failure has been shown to produce similar strength and hypertrophy adaptations . These recent findings provide further support for the use of less complicated or intimidating strength training prescriptions. Reducing the time commitment and complexity of strength training prescriptions may play a critical role in changing population-level strength training behaviour. Overall, however, strength training prescriptions and their influence on strength training participation are poorly understood.
Mode of delivery.
With the exception of two studies, all interventions were delivered in-person. Specifically, Falcon et al. (2014) used a DVD and weekly telephone calls to deliver a 12-week home-based strength training program and Mailey et al. (2020) used email and print material. Some studies incorporated the use of telephones, video conferencing, print resources, email, websites, and DVDs, but all had face-to-face contact at one or more points in the intervention. This approach differs from that of general physical activity programs, where an increasing number of interventions are delivered remotely via websites, telephones, or mobile apps [62, 72, 73]. A possible reason for the ubiquity of face-to-face strength training interventions is that trainers need to demonstrate and provide feedback on technique, which they do not need to do for simple aerobic activities such as brisk walking. More research is needed to understand whether in-person interventions specific to strength training are necessary or whether technology (e.g., online videos, video conferencing, mobile apps) can replace person-to-person contact. Remote delivery of strength training may be a particularly timely topic of research given that current COVID-19 disease control measures can also improve the accessibility of health service delivery moving forward.
All but four studies employed exercise specialists as interventionists. No studies compared the effectiveness of exercise specialists to the effectiveness of other healthcare providers or peers. Nurse- and physician-led interventions have been shown to be both cost-effective and successful in improving general physical activity participation [74, 75]. Likewise, peers have contributed to general physical activity improvements and in some cases have been identified as preferred messengers [76, 77]. It is possible that healthcare providers and peers, or others who are not professionally trained as exercise specialists, may be suitable choices for delivering generalized strength training interventions. However, it is likely that non-exercise specialists would require additional training to ensure the safety of clients engaging in strength training participation , particularly those with specific health conditions. The need and potential for non-exercise specialists to improve strength training participation remains unstudied.
Other intervention characteristics that influence affect.
Affect, described as a positive or negative arousal state or dimensions of pleasure and displeasure, may be another important intervention target for strength training participation interventions. Common themes coded outside of the BCT taxonomy included fun and variety as goals of the intervention. Strength training has been described as “boring” compared to aerobic exercise, while the inclusion of novelty and variety has been shown to influence motivation and participation in physical activity [79, 80]. Future research could examine whether adding variety to strength training exercise prescriptions (e.g., using a variety of exercises, changing exercise order, number of repetitions, etc. ) promotes more positive affect and subsequently participation. Performing strength training in a group setting or considering alternative muscle strengthening activities may also positively influence affect and, ultimately, strength training participation. Specifically, strength training participation may be higher in a group setting vs. an individual setting, as demonstrated by Fetherman et al. (2011), who showed 88% adherence to strength training in a group setting compared to 49% in an individual setting over the same period . Sports are also often overlooked as forms of muscle strengthening activities. In a Scottish national survey of strength training participation, certain sports—including athletics, canoeing/kayaking, climbing, horse riding, rowing, skiing/snowboarding, swimming, and waterskiing—were considered muscle strengthening activities . The influence of affect has been supported by a systematic review of factors associated with strength training behaviour . It should be noted that although affect may play an important role in strength training participation, strength training intensity should still be promoted at an adequate level to achieve health benefits .
Behaviour change techniques
The majority of the most commonly employed BCTs were similar to those found to be most effective in the general physical activity literature (i.e., goal setting [behaviour], feedback on behaviour, self-monitoring of behaviour, social support [practical], instructions on how to perform a behaviour, behavioural practice/rehearsal, graded tasks) [31, 32, 81]. Adding objects to the environment (e.g., provision of exercise equipment) and using a credible source (e.g., use of exercise specialists to deliver the intervention) were other commonly used BCTs in strength training participation interventions. These BCTs differ from the most commonly employed BCTs in the general physical activity literature and may be unique to strength training (likely for the reasons related to complexity and exercise specialist delivery summarized above). Despite the similarity of BCTs in the strength training and general physical activity literature, we cannot infer that strength training interventions are the same as general physical activity interventions. BCTs describe the individual components that comprise an intervention but do not include details on how those BCTs are implemented (e.g., the dose, frequency, and mode of delivery). For example, because of the complexity of strength training, prolonged and more comprehensive feedback on behaviour and behavioural practice may be required compared to aerobic exercise, or instructions on how to perform the behaviour may require a mode of delivery with a visual component.
The BCTs listed in this scoping review are the most commonly used ones; however, effectiveness cannot be inferred from frequency . It is possible that other less frequently studied, or even untested, BCTs are effective for changing strength training behaviour. Future research should explicitly examine the interaction between BCTs, how they are delivered, and the effects on strength training participation.
A strength of this scoping review was the engagement of end-users. Patient/healthcare provider perspectives were integrated into the design, interpretation, and draft and revision of this review. This integrated knowledge translation approach helped to shed light on accessible language, clinical and patient perspectives, and linked findings grounded in theory to applications relevant in the real world. Furthermore, by using the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy V1 to code interventions, we made our findings accessible to researchers in a variety of disciplines, who may use them to guide future research in this nascent field.
A few limitations must be acknowledged. First, we could have included a much larger number of studies that combined a balance training component with strength training. However, the focused inclusion/exclusion criteria were developed to address an understudied area and understand the intervention components that are unique to strength training. In addition, alternative forms of exercise that may qualify as muscle strengthening (e.g., yoga, calisthenics, and Pilates) were not included in the search and may be important to examine in the future. Second, this review was originally registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019120251) as a systematic review with two research questions. Question one (“what are the effects of strength training participation interventions?”) will be addressed in a separate systematic review. Question two in the registered protocol was defined as “what BCTs, theories, and modes of delivery are used in strength training interventions currently?’. Given the nascency and heterogeneity of the literature, we changed to a scoping review methodology for this specific question. Specifically, it was more appropriate to map the current state of the literature and suggest a research agenda that addresses current gaps than to assess the effectiveness of these intervention components, therefore warranting a scoping review methodology.
This review highlights several understudied intervention components that have the potential to considerably impact strength training behaviour change and merit exploration. Potential topics for future exploration include i) exploring theory that extends beyond the social cognitive and humanistic frameworks to include dual process or socioecological frameworks, ii) how prescription parameters can be modified to promote increased participation without sacrificing effectiveness, iii) whether these interventions can be delivered by non-exercise specialists such as clinicians and peers or by using remote delivery, iv) how interventions can target positive affect to influence strength training participation, and v) how to optimize the selection and dosing of BCTs. Separating strength training from aerobic interventions acknowledges the barriers and strategies that are unique to strength training participation. With an increased research focus on strength training behaviour change specifically, population participation in meeting both strength and aerobic exercise guidelines to optimize population health outcomes may be improved.
S3 File. Behaviour change technique coding manual.
We would like to thank Dr. Richard Winett for his review of the included studies and Arthritis Research Canada’s Arthritis Patient Advisory Board for their contributions in developing the research question and identifying future directions for research.
- 1. Tremblay MS, Warburton DER, Janssen I, Paterson DH, Latimer AE, Rhodes RE, et al. New Canadian physical activity guidelines. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2011;36(1): 36–46. pmid:21326376
- 2. Piercy KL, Troiano RP, Ballard RM, Carlson SA, Fulton JE, Galuska DA, et al. The physical activity guidelines for Americans. JAMA. 2018;320(19): 2020–2028. pmid:30418471
- 3. World Health Organization. Global recommendations on physical activity for health, 18–64 years old. 2011.
- 4. Davies DSC, Atherton F, McBride M, Calderwood C. UK Chief Medical Officers’ Physical Activity Guidelines. Dep Heal Soc Care. 2019. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/physical-activity-guidelines-uk-chief-medical-officers-report
- 5. Tambalis K, Panagiotakos DB, Kavouras SA, Sidossis LS. Responses of blood lipids to aerobic, resistance, and combined aerobic resistance exercise training: a systematic review of current evidence. Angiology. 2009;60(5): 614–632. pmid:18974201
- 6. Ashton RE, Tew GA, Aning JJ, Gilbert SE, Lewis L, Saxton JM. Effects of short-term, medium-term and long-term resistance exercise training on cardiometabolic health outcomes in adults: systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54(6): 341–348. pmid:29934430
- 7. Grøntved A, Pan A, Mekary RA, Stampfer M, Willett WC, Manson JE, et al. Muscle-strengthening and conditioning activities and risk of type 2 diabetes: a prospective study in two cohorts of US women. PLoS Med. 2014;11(1). pmid:24453948
- 8. Grøntved A, Rimm EB, Willett WC, Andersen LB, Hu FB. A prospective study of weight training and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in men. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(17): 1306–1312. pmid:22868691
- 9. Gordon BR, McDowell CP, Lyons M, Herring MP. The effects of resistance exercise training on anxiety: A meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis of randomized controlled trials. Sport Med. 2017;47(12): 2521–2532. pmid:28819746
- 10. Gordon BR, McDowell CP, Hallgren M, Meyer JD, Lyons M, Herring MP. Association of efficacy of resistance exercise training with depressive symptoms meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018;75(6): 566–576. pmid:29800984
- 11. Saeidifard F, Medina-Inojosa JR, West CP, Olson TP, Somers VK, Bonikowske AR, et al. The association of resistance training with mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019;26(15): 1647–1665. pmid:31104484
- 12. Stamatakis E, Lee IM, Bennie J, Freeston J, Hamer M, O’Donovan G, et al. Does strength-promoting exercise confer unique health benefits? A pooled analysis of data on 11 population cohorts with all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular mortality endpoints. Am J Epidemiol. 2018;187(5): 1102–1112. pmid:29099919
- 13. Fragala MS, Cadore EL, Dorgo S, Izquierdo M, Kraemer WJ, Peterson MD, et al. Resistance training for older adults: position statement from the national strength and conditioning association. J strength Cond Res. 2019;33(8): 2019–2052. pmid:31343601
- 14. Falck RS, Davis JC, Best JR, Crockett RA, Liu-Ambrose T. Impact of exercise training on physical and cognitive function among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurobiol Aging. 2019;79: 119–130. pmid:31051329
- 15. Strain T, Fitzsimons C, Kelly P, Mutrie N. The forgotten guidelines: cross-sectional analysis of participation in muscle strengthening and balance & co-ordination activities by adults and older adults in Scotland. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1): 1–12. pmid:27769211
- 16. Harris CD., Watson B., Carlson SA, Fulton JE, Dorn JM, Elam-Evans L. Adult participation in aerobic and muscle-strengthening physical activities—United States, 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep,. 2013;62(17): 326. pmid:23636025
- 17. Bennie JA, Pedisic Z, van Uffelen JGZ, Charity MJ, Harvey JT, Banting LK, et al. Pumping iron in Australia: prevalence, trends and sociodemographic correlates of muscle strengthening activity participation from a national sample of 195,926 adults. PLos One. 2016;11(4): 1–16. pmid:27119145
- 18. Loustalot F, Carlson SA, Kruger J, Buchner DM, Fulton JE. Muscle-strengthening activities and participation among adults in the United States. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2013;84(1): 30–8. pmid:23611006
- 19. Copeland JL, Good J, Dogra S. Strength training is associated with better functional fitness and perceived healthy aging among physically active older adults: a cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2019;31(9): 1257–1263. pmid:30484254
- 20. Harada K, Oka K, Ota A, Shibata A, Nakamura Y. Prevalence and correlates of strength training among Japanese adults: analysis of the SSF National Sports-Life Survey 2006. Int J Sport Heal Sci. 2008;6: 66–71.
- 21. Bennie JA, Shakespear-Druery J, De Cocker K. Muscle-strengthening exercise epidemiology: a new frontier in chronic disease prevention. Sports Med Open. 2020;6(1): 1–8.
- 22. Macridis S, Cameron C, Chaput JP, Chulak-Bozzer T, Clark P, Davenport MH, et al. Results from the 2019 ParticipACTION report card on physical activity for adults. J Phys Act Health. 2020;17(10): 995–1002. pmid:32882682
- 23. Martin Ginis KA, Ma JK, Latimer-Cheung AE, Rimmer JH. A systematic review of review articles addressing factors related to physical activity participation among children and adults with physical disabilities. Health Psychol Rev. 2016;10(1): 478–494. pmid:27265062
- 24. Bauman AE, Reis RS, Sallis JF, Wells JC, Loos RJF, Martin BW, et al. Correlates of physical activity: why are some people physically active and others not? The Lancet. 2012;380(9838): 258–271. pmid:22818938
- 25. Rhodes RE, Lubans DR, Karunamuni N, Kennedy S, Plotnikoff R. Factors associated with participation in resistance training: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51(20): 1466–1472. pmid:28404558
- 26. Nakamura Y, Harada K. Promotion of strength training. In: Kanosue K, Oshima S, Cao ZB, Oka K. Physical Activity, Exercise, Sedentary Behavior and Health. Tokyo: Springer; 2015. pp. 29–42.
- 27. Steele J, Fisher J, Skivington M, Dunn C, Arnold J, Tew G, et al. A higher effort-based paradigm in physical activity and exercise for public health: making the case for a greater emphasis on resistance training. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1): 1–8.
- 28. Winett RA, Williams DM, Davy BM. Initiating and maintaining resistance training in older adults: a social cognitive theory-based approach. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43(2): 114–119. pmid:18628361
- 29. Phillips SM, Winett RA. Uncomplicated resistance training and health-related outcomes: evidence for a public health mandate. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2010;9(4): 208. pmid:20622538
- 30. Ma JK, Martin Ginis KA. A meta-analysis of physical activity interventions in people with physical disabilities: content, characteristics, and effects on behaviour. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2018;37: 262–273.
- 31. Olander EK, Fletcher H, Williams S, Atkinson L, Turner A, French DP. What are the most effective techniques in changing obese individuals’ physical activity self-efficacy and behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10(1): 1–15. pmid:23452345
- 32. Michie S, Abraham C, Whittington C, McAteer J, Gupta S. Effective techniques in healthy eating and physical activity interventions: a meta-regression. Health Psychol. 2009;28(6): 690–701. pmid:19916637
- 33. Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis J, Hardeman W, et al. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2013;46(1): 81–95. pmid:23512568
- 34. Bartlett YK, Sheeran P, Hawley MS. Effective behaviour change techniques in smoking cessation interventions for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis. Br J Health Psychol. 2014;19(1): 181–203. pmid:24397814
- 35. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun HLD. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA- ScR): checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7): 467–473. pmid:30178033
- 36. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1): 19–32.
- 37. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1): 1–9. pmid:20854677
- 38. Michie S, Wood CE, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis JJ, Hardeman W. Behaviour change techniques: the development and evaluation of a taxonomic method for reporting and describing behaviour change interventions (a suite of five studies involving consensus methods, randomised controlled trials and analysis of qualitative data. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2015;19(99): 1–187. pmid:26616119
- 39. Hamilton CB, Hoens AM, Backman CL, McKinnon AM, McQuitty S, English K, et al. An empirically based conceptual framework for fostering meaningful patient engagement in research. Heal Expect. 2018;21(1): 396–406. pmid:28984405
- 40. Gainforth HL, Hoekstra F, McKay R, McBride CB, Sweet SN, Ginis KA, et al. Integrated knowledge translation guiding principles for conducting and disseminating spinal cord injury research in partnership. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2021 Apr 1;102(4):656–63. pmid:33129763
- 41. Lubans DR, Mundey CM, Lubans NJ, Lonsdale CC. Pilot randomized controlled trial: elastic-resistance-training and lifestyle-activity intervention for sedentary older adults. J Aging Phys Act. 2013;21(1): 20–32. pmid:22715064
- 42. Kamada M, Kitayuguchi J, Abe T, Taguri M, Inoue S, Ishikawa Y, et al. Community-wide promotion of physical activity in middle-aged and older Japanese: a 3-year evaluation of a cluster randomized trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12(1): 1–3. pmid:26100607
- 43. Mullane SL, Bocchicchio VB, Crespo NC. Feasibility and parental acceptability of an 8-week, slow-speed, high-intensity, community-based resistance training program for preadolescent children. J Community Health. 2017;40(3): 183–191. pmid:28525437
- 44. Falcon A. Use of a DVD-based strength training program by breast cancer survivors in the home setting. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. ProQuest Information & Learning. 2016.
- 45. Latimer-Cheung AE, Arbour-Nicitopoulos KP, Brawley LR, Gray C, Justine Wilson A, Prapavessis H, et al. Developing physical activity interventions for adults with spinal cord injury. Part 2: Motivational counseling and peer-mediated interventions for people intending to be active. Rehabil Psychol. 2013;58(3): 307–315. pmid:23978086
- 46. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1986.
- 47. Plotnikoff RC, Eves N, Jung M, Sigal RJ, Padwal R, Karunamuni N. Multicomponent, home-based resistance training for obese adults with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Obes. 2010;34(12): 1733–1741. pmid:20531348
- 48. Millen JA, Bray SR. Promoting self-efficacy and outcome expectations to enable adherence to resistance training after cardiac rehabilitation. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2009;24(4): 316–327. pmid:21206354
- 49. Schmitz KH, Hannan PJ, Stovitz SD, Bryan CJ, Warren M, Jensen MD. Strength training and adiposity in premenopausal women: strong, healthy, and empowered study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;86(3): 566–572. pmid:17823418
- 50. Sparrow D, Gottlieb DJ, DeMolles D, Fielding RA. Increases in muscle strength and balance using a resistance training program administered via a telecommunications system in older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2011;66(11): 1251–1257. pmid:21852283
- 51. Teychenne M, Ball K, Salmon J, Daly RM, Crawford DA, Sethi P, et al. Adoption and maintenance of gym-based strength training in the community setting in adults with excess weight or type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12(1): 1–9. pmid:26303505
- 52. Marinik EL, Kelleher S, Savla J, Winett RA, Davy BM. The Resist Diabetes trial: rationale, design, and methods of a hybrid efficacy/effectiveness intervention trial for resistance training maintenance to improve glucose homeostasis in older prediabetic adults. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;37(1): 19–32. pmid:24252311
- 53. Lubans DR, Mundey C, Lubans NJ, Lonsdale C. Testing physical activity mediators in an intervention for sedentary older adults. Int J Sport Psychol. 2013;44(3): 252–262.
- 54. Baker K, LaValley MP, Brown C, Felson DT, Ledingham A, Keysor JJ. Efficacy of computer-based telephone counseling on long-term adherence to strength training in elderly patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized trial. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2020;72(7): 982–990. pmid:31074576
- 55. Fetherman DL, Hakim RM, Sanko JP. A pilot study of the application of the transtheoretical model during strength training in older women. J Women Aging. 2011;23(1): 58–76. pmid:21271444
- 56. Ott CD, Lindsey AM, Waltman NL, Gross GJ, Twiss JJ, Berg K, et al. Facilitative strategies, psychological factors, and strength/weight training behaviors in breast cancer survivors who are at risk for osteoporosis. Orthop Nurs. 2004;23(1): 45–52. pmid:14999952
- 57. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. The transtheoretical approach. 2nd ed. In: Norcross JC, Goldfried MR, editors. Handbook of psychotherapy integration Oxford series in clinical psychology. 2nd ed. New York:Oxford;2005. pp.147–171.
- 58. Vanroy J, Seghers J, van Uffelen J, Boen F. Can a framed intervention motivate older adults in assisted living facilities to exercise? BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1): 1–11.
- 59. Mailey EL, Gasper R, Dlugonski D, Besenyi GM. Promoting strength training among baby boomers: message framing effects on motivation and behavior. Int J Behav Med. 2020: 1–12.
- 60. Deci E, Ryan R. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum; 1985.
- 61. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement:he kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005;37(5): 360–363. pmid:15883903
- 62. Webb TL, Joseph J, Yardley L, Michie S. Using the internet to promote health behaviour change: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of theoretical basis, use of behaviour change techniques, and mode of delivery on efficacy. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(1): 1–18. pmid:20164043
- 63. Michie S, Campbell R, Brown J, West R, Gainforth HL. ABC of behaviour change theories. Sutton: Silverback Publishing; 2014.
- 64. Rhodes RE, McEwan D, Rebar AL. Theories of physical activity behaviour change: a history and synthesis of approaches. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2019;42: 100–109.
- 65. Burton E, Farrier K, Lewin G, Pettigrew S, Hill AM, Airey P, et al. Motivators and barriers for older people participating in resistance training: a systematic review. J Aging Phys Act. 2017;25(2): 311–324. pmid:27620535
- 66. Haskell WL, Lee IM, Pate RR, Powell KE, Blair SN, Franklin BA, et al. Physical activity and public health: updated recommendation for adults from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39(8): 1423–1434. pmid:17762377
- 67. Westcott WL, Winett RA, Annesi JJ, Wojcik JR, Anderson ES, Madden PJ, et al. Prescribing physical activity: applying the ACSM protocols for exercise type, intensity, and duration Across 3 training frequencies. Phys Sportsmed. 2009;37(2): 51–58. pmid:20048509
- 68. Loveless MS, Ihm JM. Resistance exercise: how much is enough? Curr Sports Med Rep. 2015;14(3): 221–226. pmid:25968856
- 69. Winett RA, Carpinelli RN. Potential health-related benefits of resistance training. Prev Med. 2001;33(5): 503–513. pmid:11676593
- 70. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Van Every DW, Plotkin DL. Loading recommendations for muscle strength, hypertrophy, and local endurance: a re-examination of the repetition continuum. Sports. 2021;9(2): 1–26.
- 71. Grgic J, Garofolini A, Orazem J, Sabol F, Schoenfeld BJ, Pedisic Z. Effects of resistance training on muscle size and strength in very elderly adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Sport Med. 2020: 1–17. pmid:32740889
- 72. Davies CA, Spence JC, Vandelanotte C, Caperchione CM, Mummery WK. Meta-analysis of internet-delivered interventions to increase physical activity levels. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9(1): 1–13. pmid:22546283
- 73. Muntaner A, Vidal-Conti J. Increasing physical activity through mobile device interventions: a systematic review. Health Informatics J. 2016;22(3): 451–469. pmid:25649783
- 74. Richards EA, Cai Y. Integrative review of nurse-delivered physical activity interventions in primary care. West J Nurs Res. 2016;38(4): 484–507. pmid:25903812
- 75. Garrett S, Elley CR, Rose SB, O’Dea D, Lawton BA, Dowell AC. Are physical activity interventions in primary care and the community cost-effective? A systematic review of the evidence. Br J Gen Pract. 2011;61(584): 125–133. pmid:21375895
- 76. Gainforth HL, Giroux EE, Shaw RB, Casemore S, Clarke TY, McBride CB, et al. Investigating characteristics of quality peer mentors with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100(10): 1916–1923. pmid:31153855
- 77. Letts L, Martin Ginis KA, Faulkner G, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Gorczynski P. Preferred methods and messengers for delivering physical activity information to people with spinal cord injury: a focus group study. Rehabil Psychol. 2011;56(2): 128–137. pmid:21574732
- 78. AuYoung M, Linke SE, Pagoto S, Buman MP, Craft LL, Richardson CR, et al. Integrating physical activity in primary care practice. Am J Med. 2016;129(10): 1022–1029. pmid:26953063
- 79. Schwartz AL, Winters-Stone K. Effects of a 12-month randomized controlled trial of aerobic or resistance exercise during and following cancer treatment in women. Phys Sportsmed. 2009;37(3): 62–67. pmid:20048529
- 80. Sylvester BD, Jackson B, Beauchamp MR. The effects of variety and novelty on physical activity and healthy nutritional behaviors. In: Elliot A, editor. Advances in motivation science. 1st ed. Elsevier; 2018. pp.169–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2017.11.001
- 81. Greaves CJ, Sheppard KE, Abraham C, Hardeman W, Roden M, Evans PH, et al. Systematic review of reviews of intervention components associated with increased effectiveness in dietary and physical activity interventions. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1): 1–12. pmid:21333011