Professional Training Programs Targeting Attendance in Fitness Centers

NCT07156240 | Active Not Recruiting

• 1 other identifier: GrupoLusofona
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 117
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

Over recent decades, leading theories of human behavior have been applied across various physical activity (PA) settings, yielding mixed results. While they have provided some valuable insights, they have largely failed to achieve one central aim - to help foster sustained, population-wide increases in PA (Albarracín et al., 2024; Ekkekakis \& Zenko, 2016; Pratt et al., 2020; Rhodes et al., 2019). This gap has prompted concern, as these theories, despite some support for their assumptions, have not translated into meaningful and lasting behavior change. Some have criticized them for their overarching dependency on the decisional balance one may perform given the right set of conditions (e.g., supportive social environments; benefits vs. barriers dyad; self-efficacy appraisal) (Conn et al., 2011; Ekkekakis, 2017; Rhodes et al., 2019); others have pointed to an astonishing lack of experimental efforts testing the expression of those theoretical assumptions (Ekkekakis et al., 2019; Manninen et al., 2022; Ntoumanis \& Moller, 2025), leaving researchers, policymakers and stakeholders (and the theories) hostage to cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence. Either way, new approaches and experimental efforts to address the challenge of supporting PA practices are warranted and urgent. Three of the most studied motivational theories in PA contexts over the last decades are the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991), Self-Determination Theory (Deci \& Ryan, 1985), and the Transtheoretical Model (Prochaska \& DiClemente, 1984) (Ntoumanis et al., 2018; Simpson et al., 2025). Without minimizing their usefulness and robust body of evidence, they fall into the category of theories that have struggled, to date, to demonstrate moderate or large effects in programs aiming to improve exercise-related behavior based on their assumptions. Naturally, the complexity of each theory or model brings several challenges that undermine the extent to which we can confidently attribute any limited effect observed in an experimental study solely to the theory's inability to express its assumptions. As such, despite decades of research grounded in several (conceptually) well-established behavioral theories, there remains a need to test their assumptions through experimental approaches and, complementarily - or if necessary, alternatively - to explore new avenues for inquiry and theoretical development (Simpson et al., 2025). To this end, the present study will address this issue experimentally using two theoretical approaches. The first approach is grounded in a well-established theory of human motivation, Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which offers numerous recommendations for its potential application, particularly in promoting positive impacts on exercise adherence. The second approach is structured in alignment with the general principles of hedonic theory, a recently revitalized approach to the understanding of Human behavior, focusing on the promotion of pleasurable responses during exercise.

Conditions

Exercise Frequency

Keywords

exercise; affect; motivation; adherence; frequency

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• Club attendance

  Club attendance during a one-year period collected with the turstile digital system

  Collected on the last day of each month, and averaged after a one-year period (September 1st to August 31st)

Secondary Outcomes (19)

• Attrition rate

  Number of total cancellations or dropouts for each month, collected through the turstile digital record and club payment system, summed throughout 12 months

• Exercise habit measured with the Self-reported behavioral automaticity index (SRBAI) - Baseline

  Baseline; after club enrollment, in the first two weeks of September 2025, at any given time

• Exercise habit measured with the Self-reported behavioral automaticity index (SRBAI) - 6 months

  After 6 months of enrollment; first two weeks of February, at any given time

• Exercise habit measured with the Self-reported behavioral automaticity index (SRBAI) - 12 months

  After 12 months, during the last week of August 2026, at any given time

• Initial behavioral intention to continue exercising; the intention to exercise questionnaire - Baseline

  Baseline; after club enrollment, in the first two weeks of September 2025, at any given time

Study Arms (3)

Control group

PLACEBO COMPARATOR

FITT-VP 2025 training course

Other: Control group

Experimental I (SDT)

EXPERIMENTAL

SDT-based training course

Behavioral: Experimental I (SDT)

Experimental II (hedonic)

EXPERIMENTAL

Hedonic-based training course

Behavioral: Experimental II (Hedonic)

Interventions

Experimental I (SDT) BEHAVIORAL

SDT-based course aiming to inmprove professionals operational interpersonal qualities

Experimental I (SDT)

Experimental II (Hedonic) BEHAVIORAL

Hedonic-based course aiming to inmprove professionals operational interpersonal qualities

Experimental II (hedonic)

Control group OTHER

FITT-VP bases course aiming to improve exercise prescription

Control group

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years+
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• Professionals
• \- All exercise professionals in the three clubs
• Exercisers
• \> 18 years old
• All exercisers enrolled in the three clubs
• A subsample of the first 174 voluntaries participating in the study and enrolled in the three clubs after September 1st

You may not qualify if:

• Expulsion of the clubs due to internal rules violation or other decision independent of this study

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Grupo Lusófona: lead

Study Sites (1)

People family club

Lisbon, Portugal

Location

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Motor Activity

Interventions

Control Groups

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Behavior

Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Epidemiologic Research Design; Epidemiologic Methods; Investigative Techniques; Research Design; Methods

Study Officials

• Diogo S. Teixeira, PhD

  Lusófona University

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: SINGLE
• Who Masked: PARTICIPANT
• Purpose: TREATMENT
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Professor

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: August 27, 2025
• First Posted: September 5, 2025
• Study Start: September 3, 2025
• Primary Completion (Estimated): August 31, 2026
• Study Completion (Estimated): September 1, 2026
• Last Updated: January 22, 2026

Record last verified: 2025-08

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

PT (1)