Making plans did not clearly get people more active overall; plans with check-ins may
No differenceThe short version
Across 11 studies, plans did not clearly make people more active than the other groups.

- 11
- studies pooled
- 2,247
- adults in 11 studies on physical activity
- Self-rated
- people rated themselves
- 3 tools
- tested
The review
Who took part
The review combined 11 studies of 2,247 adults. Across all 13 studies, people were 18 to 76. Most had a health problem or risk factor, such as obesity.
What they did
People made plans for when and where to be active, and if-then plans for when things got in the way. The other groups got videos, leaflets or meetings about being active. Seven studies also checked on the plans by calls, texts or visits, and ran from 2 to 32 weeks.
What happened
Overall, people who made plans were not clearly more active than the other groups. In the seven studies that checked on the plans by calls, texts or visits, people were more active than the other groups. All the studies asked people how active they were, and the summary claims more than the results show.
What the review found
- No difference
Across 11 studies, plans did not clearly make people more active than the other groups.
Pooled analysis of 11 studies with 2,247 people · vs people who got videos, leaflets or meetings about being active · they rated themselves
- Helped
Across seven studies, plans checked by calls, texts or visits helped people get more active than the other groups.
- Action: Make an if-then plan for your obstacletested
- Rule: Write down when and wheretested
- Rule: Get a remindertested
Pooled analysis of 7 studies with 1,347 people · vs people who got videos, leaflets or meetings about being active · they rated themselves
How solid is this?
- Large group
- People rated themselves
- Summary claims more than the results show
- Numbers unreliable
- The review didn't check the studies' quality or look for missing studies
Source
Impact of implementation intentions on physical activity practice in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (2018)
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206294 (opens in a new tab)

