Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Nov 2;17(11):e0277106. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277106

Barriers and facilitators for adopting a healthy lifestyle in a multi-ethnic population: A qualitative study

Mythily Subramaniam 1,2,*, Fiona Devi 1, P V AshaRani 1, Yunjue Zhang 1, Peizhi Wang 1, Anitha Jeyagurunathan 1, Kumarasan Roystonn 1, Janhavi Ajit Vaingankar 1, Siow Ann Chong 1
Editor: Eliana Carraça3
PMCID: PMC9629631  PMID: 36322596

Abstract

A healthy lifestyle is defined as ‘a way of living that lowers the risk of being seriously ill or dying early.’ Although barriers and facilitators of healthy lifestyles have been well-studied among populations like those with chronic non-communicable diseases, adolescents, and older adults in Asia, less information is available on barriers and facilitators perceived by the general adult population. Using a qualitative methodology and leveraging the socio-ecological model, the current study aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators of a healthy lifestyle in a sample of Singapore residents. Overall, 30 semi-structured interviews were conducted in English and other local languages from August 2020 to March 2021. Transcripts were analysed using framework analysis. Five main themes pertaining to personal, interpersonal, environmental, socio-cultural, and policy-level factors were classified under the two overarching categories of barriers and facilitators of healthy lifestyles. The results of this study offer important insights into understanding the barriers and facilitators to the adoption of a healthy lifestyle among people in Singapore. Furthermore, our findings illustrate the complex interplay between individuals, social relationships, environment, and policy that can act as either a barrier or a facilitator to adopting a healthy lifestyle.

Introduction

Life expectancy at birth has increased globally, and improvements in population health status have been observed for every life stage [1]. Public health initiatives such as universal immunisation, enhanced health infrastructure, improved maternal and infant health, tobacco control, and motor vehicle safety have driven these changes globally [2]. This increased life expectancy is associated with changing disease patterns, i.e., a transition from acute to chronic diseases as the primary source of morbidity and mortality worldwide [3]. At the same time, the physician-patient relationship has progressively moved towards shared decision-making, where clinicians and patients make decisions together using the best available evidence [4]. Furthermore, with patients becoming avid consumers of medical knowledge and taking on a more active role in their well-being, the responsibility for health rests on individuals and societies [5].

The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines a healthy lifestyle as ‘a way of living that lowers the risk of being seriously ill or dying early’ [6]. Pender’s health promotion model defines barriers to a healthy lifestyle as ‘factors that directly interfere with the enactment of a health-promoting behavior or mediate by reducing the commitment to the plan of action for changing behavior’ [7]. On the other hand, facilitators are defined as factors that promote or enable the uptake and maintenance of a healthy lifestyle [8]. Identifying the barriers and facilitators can guide the design and implementation of evidence-informed behaviour change interventions that can specifically leverage the facilitators and target the barriers across multiple levels to improve healthy lifestyles.

A systematic review of 32 studies from 1980 to February 2010 by Murray et al. [9] found that a better understanding of illness, and perception of significant consequences of illness, were strong facilitators that promoted the uptake of lifestyle behavior change interventions. While stress, depression, lack of social support, and transport and commute time problems were significant barriers. Similar findings were reported by Kelly et al. [10] in their rapid systematic review, which examined barriers and facilitators to the uptake and maintenance of healthy behaviours by people in their mid-life. Across 28 qualitative studies, 11 longitudinal cohort studies, and 46 systematic reviews, the authors identified several barriers. These included lack of time, access (to transport, facilities, and resources), financial costs, entrenched attitudes and behaviours, low socioeconomic status, and lack of knowledge. In contrast, facilitators included enjoyment and a sense of well-being associated with physical activity, health benefits including healthy ageing, social support, clear messages, accessible websites, and previous experience of ill health.

In Asia, barriers and facilitators of healthy lifestyles have been well-studied among populations like those with chronic non-communicable diseases, adolescents, and older adults. However, less information on barriers and facilitators perceived by the general adult population is available. A qualitative study from Sri Lanka identified several barriers to adopting physical activity in an urban activity-friendly area. The barriers included competing priorities like work, physical concerns like safety, health concerns such as discomfort, resources including facilities and social support, and lack of understanding of the importance of physical activity for health [11]. A study from Nepal that examined the barriers and facilitators to healthy eating in a worksite cafeteria identified the unavailability or high cost of healthy foods, cultural preferences for fried food, and difficulty in changing eating habits as the main barriers. This study identified the availability and affordability of healthy food as the main facilitators of healthy eating [12]. A qualitative study conducted in India among the attendees of an urban health centre identified motivation/willpower, time management skills, knowledge and perceived benefits of physical activity, health problems, and availability of exercise facilities as facilitators of physical activity. Lack of time, space, or equipment, unfavourable weather, physical restriction, and laziness were important barriers [13].

Singapore is a densely populated, urbanised, city-state in Southeast Asia with a multiracial population of about 5.5 million, comprising Chinese, Malays, Indians, and a smaller proportion of other ethnicities [14]. In the past three decades, life expectancy in Singapore has risen by about ten years; however, healthy life expectancy at birth increased only by 7.2 years [15]. Thus, there is a need to promote successful ageing in the population [16].

The Singapore Government has made concerted efforts and worked consistently across sectors to promote evidence-based practices to build and maintain a culture of active living in the population [17]. In addition, Singapore supports the philosophy of individual responsibility, and it remains a central tenet of Singapore’s approach to healthcare [18]. In 2016, the Singapore Health Minister declared War on Diabetes (WoD). The effort was mainly in response to the higher prevalence of diabetes in Singapore compared to the global prevalence rate, with nearly one in ten Singaporeans (9.5%) suffering from the disease [19]. As part of this initiative, the government increased the availability and accessibility of physical activity programmes, launched nationwide physical activity-based challenges, and increased the availability of healthier food options in schools, restaurants, and food courts [20]. Thus, against this backdrop of sustained health-promoting policies and the focus on personal responsibility for health, Singapore presents a unique opportunity to understand the factors related to the uptake of a healthy lifestyle. However, no study has examined the barriers and facilitators for adopting a healthy lifestyle in Singapore to date.

Several theoretical frameworks have been offered to explain health behavior. The socio-ecological model (SEM) has been widely used to understand the interrelations between personal, social, and environmental determinants of lifestyle behavior [21, 22]. The model is attractive as it incorporates, intrapersonal or personal (biological, psychological), interpersonal/cultural, organizational, physical environment (built, natural), and policy (laws, regulations) influences. We adopted the perspective of the SEM framework in our qualitative inquiry to gain a deeper understanding of the barriers and facilitators of a healthy lifestyle in Singapore. Since ecological models incorporate a wide range of influences at multiple levels and explicitly include environmental and policy variables that are expected to influence behavior, the researchers felt that it would be most appropriate for the current inquiry. A secondary aim of the study was to explore if the people were aware of and utilized the interventions launched as part of the WoD to improve healthy lifestyles. The findings of such a study can help develop targeted interventions to overcome the barriers and enhance the facilitators to improve the impact of national campaigns in Singapore.

Methods

Study design and setting

The data for the current study was part of a more extensive study that examined the knowledge, attitudes, and protective practices toward diabetes among the public in Singapore. The study comprised a quantitative survey (n = 2895) and a qualitative phase (n = 30) to explore the barriers and facilitators of a healthy lifestyle in Singapore. The study methodology was published in an earlier article [23]. The sample for the nationwide survey was derived using a disproportionate stratified sampling design. In all, 12 strata: a combination of 3 strata for ethnicities (Chinese, Malay, and Indian) and four strata for age (18 to 34 years, 35 to 49 years, 50 to 64 years, and 65 years and above) were employed for the sampling. The proportion of respondents in each ethnic group (Chinese, Malay, and Indian) was set at approximately 30%, while the proportion of respondents in each age group was set at around 20% to ensure a sufficient sample size for these population subgroups [23].

The participants for the qualitative study were recruited from among those who participated in the quantitative survey and permitted recontact for future research studies. The inclusion criteria comprised Singapore citizens or permanent residents aged 21 years or above, the ability to speak in either English, Chinese, Malay, or Tamil, and not being diagnosed by a doctor as having diabetes. Participants were stratified according to their age (≥ 40 years and < 40 years), gender, and ethnicity (Chinese, Malay, Indian, and others), and then randomly chosen using an online randomisation software and recruited into the qualitative phase. To account for participant refusals, the sample was drawn in excess (i.e., 60 English-speaking participants and 30 native-language speakers). This sampling allows multiple perspectives to be presented that illustrate the complexity of the phenomenon under study [24]. However, the researchers did not link the quantitative data provided by the individuals with the qualitative data.

Data collection

In Singapore, The Government imposed a nationwide ‘circuit breaker’ comprising restrictions on public gatherings and dining in restaurants, shift to home-based schooling, and working from home from 7th April 2020 until 1st June 2020. As of 2nd June 2020, Singapore entered the ‘reopening’ phase, and businesses and activities were progressively allowed to operate. The study period for the current study was eight months, from August 2020 to March 2021. While the measures had been relaxed, and a significant proportion of the population was vaccinated, some participants were uncomfortable doing face-to-face interviews. Interviews were therefore conducted in person or via the Zoom video-conferencing platform, depending on the participants’ preference.

In all, 30 interviews were conducted; 20 were in English, four in Chinese, and three in Malay and Tamil. Each interview lasted between 60–90 minutes and was audio-recorded. Participants were interviewed in venues that afforded privacy so that they could freely express their views. Participants who opted for a Zoom interview were similarly informed that they should ensure a quiet and private interview setting. Using an interview guide, a trained qualitative interviewer, accompanied by a note-taker, conducted the interviews.

The interview guide was developed based on existing literature [25, 26] and further modified after discussions with a general practitioner and a diabetologist. The researchers minimally modified the interview guide to include relevant probes after the first two interviews (S1 File). A guided discussion format was used, and participants were encouraged to speak freely about their thoughts and experiences [27].

Data analysis was undertaken concurrently, allowing emerging themes to inform ongoing data collection. The researchers met up regularly and discussed emerging findings to ensure the trustworthiness of the data. Data collection ceased when saturation could reasonably be assumed. The team members transcribed and analysed the data after recruiting the first 20 English-language interviews before commencing the local-language interviews. This was to ensure that we had reached thematic saturation with the data collection and to simultaneously assess the language-specific interviews for the emergence of any new themes. An additional ten interviews were conducted with native speakers, i.e., those able to speak only in Chinese, Malay, and Tamil. This ensured that the perspectives of those belonging to a different socio-cultural background were taken into consideration.

Written informed consent was taken from all the participants, and ethical approval for the study was obtained from the relevant institutional review board (National Healthcare Group Domain Specific Review Board; protocol ref:2019/00926).

Qualitative analysis

The interviews (English and language-specific) were transcribed or translated and transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription firm and checked for accuracy by a study team member. Transcripts were analysed using framework analysis. The framework method was initially developed for large-scale policy research [28]; however, it is now widely used in healthcare research. It is a data analysis method rather than a research paradigm which, unlike entirely inductive and iterative approaches, may be shaped by existing ideas and is less focused on producing a new theory [29].

Data familiarisation

First, seven researchers (ZYJ, AR, FD, WP, KR, AJ, and MS) familiarised themselves with the first eight transcripts by reading them multiple times. This was in line with Srivastava and Thomson [30], who stated that, given the large volume of data in qualitative research, not every piece of material may be reviewed at this stage. Following the deep reading, initial themes were identified by individual researchers. Next, these themes were checked against the interview guide and study objectives, resulting in the development of a set of preliminary codes for different barriers and facilitators to a healthy lifestyle.

Constructing an initial thematic framework

The researchers then met to discuss and combine their preliminary codes. These discussions helped in resolving disagreements in defining or including themes. Largely there was consensus among the team members, but when there was a disagreement that could not be resolved, the first author made a call on the inclusion and definition of initial themes. These initial codes were then sorted into a hierarchy of themes and sub-themes to construct an initial framework. To ensure that all the research objectives were met, the initial framework consisted of four main categories, with several sub-themes under each category.

On reaching a consensus, a codebook was constructed, which contained a detailed description of each code, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and typical and atypical exemplars to assist with valid and reliable code application.

Indexing and sorting

Each semi-structured interview (SSI) was used as a unit of analysis. To determine ‘what parts of the data are about the same thing and belong together’ [31], labels were applied to ‘chunks’ of data with the same meaning to decide the category/ theme from the framework to assign the text to. Using NVivo, the selected (highlighted) text was ‘dragged and dropped’ into the relevant sub-themes. This process was followed for all the transcripts.

Three interviewers (AR, FD, and WP) systematically applied the framework to all the transcripts after achieving an inter-rater reliability of 0.87 (Kappa (κ) value) with the first two transcripts. There were no significant disagreements between the three coders on any subthemes or categories.

Mapping and interpretation

The finalized themes and subthemes were grouped together. Once the main themes and sub-themes were reviewed and finalised, a matrix was created for each theme using Excel, with individual columns for the sub-themes. The first column of the matrix contained case identification details (demographics), followed by summaries of individual themes in subsequent columns. Representative quotes were selected from the SSI to illustrate key themes and subthemes. These themes and subthemes are represented pictorially in Fig 1.

Fig 1. Barriers and facilitators of adopting a healthy lifestyle.

Fig 1

To gain a deeper understanding of the barriers across the demographic groups, we examined the endorsement of the themes across key demographic groups. This included gender (male and female), age groups (less than 40 years versus 40 years and above), and highest educational status attained (tertiary (diploma, degree, and post-graduate education) versus lower than tertiary education (primary, secondary and high school).

All analyses were conducted using Nvivo V.11 (QSR International. NVivo V.11).

Results

A total of 30 participants (14 females and 16 males) participated in the study. The mean age of participants was 44.7 years (SD = 14.7), ranging from 21 to 75 years (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic profile of participants.

Subject ID Age Ethnicity Gender Language of interview Education Employment
SS001 25 Chinese F English Diploma Employed
SS002 24 Chinese M English Diploma Student
SS003 39 Malay F English Diploma Employed
SS004 38 Malay F English Post graduate degree Homemaker
SS005 54 Chinese F English Degree Employed
SS006 25 Malay M English Diploma Employed
SS007 34 Malay M English Completed secondary education Employed
SS008 27 Malay M English Degree Employed
SS009 31 Malay F English Degree Employed
SS010 22 Chinese M English Completed high school (equivalent) Student
SS011 53 Chinese F English Completed high school (equivalent) Employed
SS012 55 Malay F English Completed primary education Employed
SS013 56 Chinese M English Diploma Unemployed
SS014 26 Chinese F English Degree Employed
SS015 46 Others F English Post graduate degree Employed
SS016 38 Chinese M English Vocational Institute Training Unemployed
SS017 24 Others M English University degree Employed
SS018 58 Indian M English Completed secondary education Employed
SS019 52 Indian M English Post graduate degree Employed
SS020 54 Indian M English Degree Employed
SS021 60 Chinese M Chinese Some secondary education Employed
SS022 39 Chinese M Chinese Degree Employed
SS023 60 Chinese M Chinese Completed secondary education Unemployed
SS024 59 Chinese F Chinese Completed secondary education Employed
SS025 54 Malay F Malay Completed primary education Unemployed
SS026 71 Malay M Malay Completed primary education Homemaker
SS027 65 Malay F Malay Some secondary education Homemaker
SS028 37 Indian M Tamil Completed secondary education Employed
SS029 61 Indian F Tamil Completed primary education Employed
SS030 53 Indian F Tamil Some secondary education Homemaker

Five main themes pertaining to personal, interpersonal, environmental, socio-cultural, and policy-level factors were classified under the two overarching categories of barriers and facilitators of healthy lifestyles. The personal, interpersonal, environmental, and policy-level factors comprised subthemes and are highlighted below. Fig 1 shows the summary of the findings of the themes and sub-themes. Minimally edited verbatims that preserve and highlight the participants’ experiences and beliefs have been included. In addition, the details of the participants have been provided in brackets as Subject ID/Age/ Gender (Male or Female).

Barriers to a healthy lifestyle

Personal factors

Personal factors comprised two main subthemes explaining the barriers to adopting a healthy lifestyle. These included:

Lack of willpower and self-discipline. About one-third of participants mentioned the lack of willpower as an important barrier to maintaining a healthy lifestyle in terms of diet and exercise. They described people as ‘being lazy,’ using ‘tired,’ ‘too busy,’ and ‘work’ as an excuse not to partake in physical activity. They also alluded to personal dietary preferences such as liking sweets and desserts and people not having the willpower to resist them. A few respondents felt that people were aware of the ill effects of consuming too much sugar, yet they did not have the self-discipline to limit their intake. In addition, respondents felt that people generally knew about the negative outcomes of smoking and alcohol. Yet, they did not quit smoking/ drinking as they did not have the willpower to do it and instead made-up excuses when asked to quit. Respondents also felt that while people may have good intentions and want to adopt a healthy lifestyle, they lacked the willpower to follow through and fell back into unhealthy habits.

It is your own self-cultivation and self-discipline that has to do with your health. If you don’t have good self-discipline and you mess around, what kind of healthy body will you have?” (SS022/39/M)

It’s really hard to change. I have been in contact with a few of them (referring to smokers). One of them stopped smoking for three months. “I stopped smoking.” After a few days, he started again. I asked him, ‘What do you smoke for?’ “Oh, pressure.” Pressure is fake.” (SS021/60/M)

Lack of knowledge. Participants felt that it was difficult for someone with a chronic health condition to exercise. They also felt that as a person becomes older, they should avoid vigorous exercise as they could injure themselves more easily. Thus, they thought it was advisable for older people and those with chronic health conditions to reduce their exercise. They did not seem aware that these groups could exercise safely and substitute high-impact activities for lower-impact ones. Regarding diet, respondents expressed frustration with contradictory messages on what was healthy. They felt that food once considered healthy was no longer believed to be healthy and vice versa. Thus, they were unsure of what should be consumed and what should be avoided. A few respondents identified social media as a significant source of unreliable health information.

For those who have health conditions, it is very difficult for them to do exercise daily. They are in a life situation where they just cannot take part in a lot of things.” (SS030/53/F)

… especially those messages on social media and WhatsApp about your health. Some people say, “Don’t take coconut.” Some people say, “Yeah. Coconut is healthy. You take more coconut.” So really difficult to judge which is right or which is wrong.” (SS019/52/M)

Interpersonal factors

Negative attitudes and negative influences of family and friends towards a healthy lifestyle. Interpersonal factors were mainly identified as the negative attitudes of family and friends towards a healthy lifestyle or the influence of unhealthy practices of friends and family members. E.g., participants mentioned over-eating during family occasions as there was an excess of food and family members or friends urged them to eat more during social gatherings. Participants said that friends who ridiculed their healthy eating habits were barriers to adopting a healthy lifestyle. Several participants shared that when they have food with friends, they tend to over-eat or eat food that is not particularly healthy. They felt uncomfortable not eating the food as they were afraid to be perceived as spoilsports if they did not partake in the feasting and drinking.

I think there’s a stigma against healthy food. I know how some of my friends say that eating your salad is girly or whatnot. So maybe eating salad is associated with teenage girls, I guess. I don’t know. And I guess maybe if they smoke a stick or drink beer, it is more associated with masculine ideals. So maybe if you don’t follow the party or whatnot, you may be viewed as an outlier or something. So yeah. I would say there is some social stigma tied to certain types of food or lifestyle, I guess.” (SS010/22/M)

…for example, go out with friends and drink milk tea (referring to bubble milk tea, a sweet tea with tapioca balls that is very popular in Singapore) together, and then he drinks a cup and buys you a cup. Will you not drink it? Sometimes, it’s not very polite to say no to your friends.” (SS022/39/M)

Environmental factors

As most of the interviews were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic when outdoor activity was restricted, it was not surprising that participants mentioned the pandemic as a significant barrier to physical activity. The fear of infection, safe distancing measures, and other restrictions hindered participants from performing outdoor activities and those conducted in gyms or enclosed spaces. The other sub-theme that emerged pertained to situational factors such as conflicting demands leading to time constraints and the low cost and ready availability of fast food that were perceived to be barriers to adopting a healthy lifestyle.

COVID-19 pandemic. All the participants mentioned the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their lifestyles and expressed their fears and frustrations. For example, participants talked about how the social distancing regulations, closure of indoor gyms and training spaces, and the need to mask up (even in outdoor spaces in Singapore) were significant barriers to exercising in Singapore. Moreover, wearing a mask for most of the day in Singapore’s hot and humid weather left them tired, irritable, and reluctant to exercise.

Actually, before COVID, my friends and I played soccer on a weekly basis, every Sunday. Yeah. But because of COVID, then we stopped completely.” (SS008/27/M)

And looking at the number of cases (Covid cases), they went up higher. So, it’s a deterrence to exercising.” (SS022/39/M)

Situational factors. The most discussed barrier was time constraints associated with competing priorities such as employment, household chores, and looking after children or older parents. However, other factors, such as financial constraints and limited access to healthy food, were also reported to impact healthy lifestyle behaviours.

Participants mentioned that healthy food was both expensive and not readily available. They acknowledged that fast food was the most convenient food, and while they knew that consuming a diet rich in calories was associated with being overweight, they were unable to avoid it. The easy availability of fast food at all hours and food stalls that stayed open even during the night in Singapore also encouraged poor food habits. Interestingly, food delivery was associated with an unhealthy lifestyle. Participants felt that food delivery led people to order more due to convenience and easy availability. In addition to that, it also led to them eating at odd hours.

While most participants acknowledged that Singapore had several parks and exercise areas that were conducive to physical activity, three of the respondents had concerns about the safety of these facilities. These included dimly lit parks that made walking difficult at night and sharing the same path by pedestrians, cyclists, and children and teenagers who tended to run or skate, thus increasing the risk of accidents among older adults. In addition, two participants highlighted the lack of good cycling tracks in Singapore, which does not encourage a cycling culture, unlike Denmark or the Netherlands.

Because sometimes, frankly speaking, children are young, and it is hard for you to have any free time for yourself.” (SS024/59/F)

I think maybe the fact that healthy food is quite expensive in Singapore. So, I guess food, in general, can be quite affordable if you go hawker centre (i.e., open-air complexes with many stalls that sell a wide variety of affordably priced food) or whatnot. But then they are generally not very healthy, so it can be quite troublesome for some people to cook healthier food.” (SS010/22/M)

Now you can even use your phone to just order, and they will deliver it directly to your house. Ordering food or eating outside food has become so easy that it has become a part of their lifestyle. So, they don’t give much consideration to the food itself, and a healthy lifestyle is lost.” (SS030/53/F)

Cultural factors. Several cultural factors emerged as barriers to the adoption of healthy lifestyles. Given the multi-ethnic nature of Singapore, barriers pertaining to cultural factors were identified both by people belonging to that ethnocultural group and others. These included:

The cultural importance of traditional food. Participants acknowledged that cooking and eating traditional food was an important ritual in Singapore. However, about one-third of the participants felt that Indian and Malay food tended to be oily and calorie-rich. They also acknowledged that these types of food appealed to people’s taste and they ended up overeating them. In addition, they felt that desserts unique to these cultures were similarly sweet and not healthy. Coconut milk in traditional food preparations was similarly identified as an unhealthy but necessary ingredient. Some also commented that those of the Chinese ethnicity liked to eat pork and were unwilling to switch to healthier meat alternatives (such as white meat). They also acknowledged that Chinese cuisine could be oily as many dishes are deep-fried.

In fact, Singapore’s food is not only western food, but also Malay food, Indian food, and Chinese food. It doesn’t contain as much oil as Chinese cuisine in China. Chinese food has a lot of oil. The Chinese food here, oil and salt, will not be so overused, but it will have a lot of fried things. And your Indian food and Malay food, I believe it, will have a lot of sugar, especially Malay food.” (SS022/39/M)

Customs and Festivals. Participants also talked about the food habits of specific ethnic groups, such as eating dinner late at night and close to bedtime, which they perceived as unhealthy. They also acknowledged that festive periods were not conducive to maintaining a healthy lifestyle as it was all about meeting friends and families and eating. So, one tended to overeat during such periods.

As far as we Chinese are concerned, if we talk about the Chinese New year, it may be that everyone eats more…” (SS021/60/M)

Language barriers. People from minority ethnicities expressed their reluctance to participate in community-based group exercise programs as they felt they would not be able to understand the instructions as these tend to be conducted in a language, they are not conversant with.

…that’s why I just hate to go to some of these community activities. They are all in English, and I won’t understand. Most or all are in English only, so I feel a little uncomfortable because of that.” (SS030/50/F)

Policy related factors

Policy-related barriers did not emerge very strongly in this group of participants. However, a few participants expressed their frustration with the reluctance of the government to impose a sugar tax. They felt that sugar caused significant harm to a person’s health, but it was not something that could be taxed. They mentioned the ‘bubble tea fad’ in Singapore, leading to several shops selling sweet and calorie-rich drinks across the country. The existing policies could not limit such shops; the government, they felt, could only advocate and educate people about the potential harms of such food.

I don’t think it’s realistic. Because, for example, the government tells people not to smoke, then they increase the tax on cigarettes. Don’t drink, and they will add a high tax to wine. But it is impossible to add a high tax on sugar because sugar is a necessity in life. Unlike tobacco and wine, it is not a luxury but a part of the diet. Many people in their daily life use sugar. So, you can’t, the government can’t say, add a high tax to milk tea shops. So, I think from the government’s point of view that they can’t do many things. They can just advocate.” (SS022/39/M)

Analysis of barriers across the socio-demographic groups revealed differences in the endorsement of sub-themes. Those who were older, i.e., 40 years and above, endorsed a lack of willpower and self-discipline as a barrier to adopting a healthy lifestyle. Women were more likely to endorse situational factors and customs and festivals as barriers. In contrast, more men endorsed the cultural importance of local food as a barrier to a healthy lifestyle. Those with a tertiary education did not feel that language was a barrier to participating in activities, and only four of them endorsed a lack of willpower and self-discipline as a barrier to the adoption of a healthy lifestyle (Table 2).

Table 2. Barriers and facilitators endorsed by respondents across socio-demographic groups discussion.
Male (n = 16) Female (n = 14) < 40 years (n = 14) ≥40 years (n = 16) Tertiary education (n = 15) Less than tertiary education (n = 15)
Barriers
Lack of willpower and self-discipline 7 6 4 9 4 9
Situational factors 7 9 8 8 8 8
The cultural importance of traditional food 7 4 5 6 5 6
Customs and Festivals 3 6 4 5 4 5
Language Barriers 2 2 2
Facilitators
Workplace-initiated health promotion interventions 6 6 11 1 10 2
Built spaces and workstations 10 7 9 8 6 11

*Only subthemes that were different across socio-demographic factors have been highlighted

Tertiary includes diploma, degree and postgraduate education

Facilitators of a healthy lifestyle

Personal and interpersonal factors

Most of the facilitators highlighted by the participants in these two themes were the opposite of those mentioned as barriers. However, the absence of a barrier was not necessarily a facilitator. For example, most participants highlighted ‘willpower and motivation’ as personal facilitators. Participants talked about how willpower was necessary to exercise regularly and eat healthy food. They also felt that if people knew the impact of a healthy lifestyle on long-term outcomes, they would commit to them. One-third of participants also acknowledged that people with health conditions should continue to exercise and maintain a healthy diet as it can prevent secondary complications. They also highlighted the important role of friends and family members in encouraging and supporting a healthy lifestyle, which helped the participants maintain it.

Organisational/ institutional factors

Workplace-initiated health promotion interventions. The workplace emerged as a significant facilitator of a healthy lifestyle. More than half of the participants who were employed mentioned various workplace initiatives that had helped them to become more physically active. This was mainly through workplace wellbeing initiatives such as the distribution of fruits, subsidized fruit bazaars at the place of work, educational sessions on diet and its impact on well-being, and group exercise classes like Zumba or Yoga. Many workplaces continued these initiatives even during the pandemic by leveraging Zoom and other platforms.

But my workplace, I would say they are trying to endorse the whole healthy lifestyle thing. So, we do have things like a monthly fruit giveaway. So, every single month we’ll get different kinds of fruit and then staff will explain to us the benefit of eating food, or fruit rather. We have staff exercise sessions where you can sign up for yoga or gym sessions or go for a walk.” (SS009/31/F)

Influence of healthcare and other professionals. Several participants talked about adopting a healthier lifestyle after their healthcare provider (usually a doctor or dietician) advised them about healthy eating or physical activity. They also spoke of informative media programs that encouraged the adoption of a healthy lifestyle.

Polyclinics (primary care clinics) or I think if I didn’t recall wrongly—I can’t really remember. Is it one of the hospitals or polyclinics my parents visited? They actually have a nutritionist who tells you what to eat.” (SS016/38M)

White meat, the doctor’s advice is to eat more white meat instead of red meat because red meat is not good for cholesterol.” (SS022/39/M)

Environmental factors

Role of Technology as a facilitator of a healthy lifestyle. All the participants highlighted the role of technology as a facilitator of a healthy lifestyle. However, their understanding of technology varied. Any source of information like television, radio, Internet search engines, channels like YouTube, social media sites, and Apps (mobile applications) was described as technology. Participants saw technology as enabling access to information on diet and exercise, aiding in training and tracking and monitoring their physical activity, heart rate, sleep, and food consumption. Some participants alluded to Apps that sent reminders to breathe deeply, meditate, and walk as helpful.

App for cycling that’s called Strava. I think that’s just the only healthy fitness app that I have. So, they will keep track of your heartbeat, the distance from one point to another, and the speed of cycling.” (SS007/34/M)

It’s MyFitnessPal. Well, it tracks my calorie intake for the day. And it’s quite specific. It’s quite good. But I think they cannot detect some of the local foods. But other than that, they can track basically whatever that goes in your mouth, yeah, whatever you consume. And you can put in your exercises for the day. So, yes, it will help you calculate your goals, like how many KG you want to lose in a month also, which is quite good.” (SS008/24/M)

Policy-related factors

The participants highlighted several policy-related facilitators. These included:

Built spaces and exercise stations. More than half of the participants talked about the availability of neighbourhood parks which provided a safe and convenient place to exercise. Participants mentioned that grassroots organisations often organised walks in their neighbourhood and that volunteers would encourage them to join in these activities. They were also aware that several activities were conducted in these spaces that one could join at no cost. Some also felt that such group activities motivated them, and they enjoyed doing these more than doing exercises by themselves. Participants also mentioned that there are public swimming pools that one could use and government-run gyms where one could access high-quality equipment at a minimal cost. Participants acknowledged that the government was constantly upgrading parks and gyms, and they could now easily access parks and exercise corners.

Walking, our government is good, gave us many parks and so many connectors (scenic roads connecting parks where pedestrians can walk). You cannot say that there are no facilities.” (SS024/59/F)

Sometimes they do come and call me to join, like what’s that called, social service Community volunteers. When we exercise with other people in a group, it gives us a sort of motivation.” (SS030/53/F)

Inclusion of physical education as a core curriculum in school. About a quarter of the participants mentioned that including physical education in schools and getting children to exercise regularly as part of the school curriculum encouraged incorporating exercise into their lifestyle. They also shared that even tertiary education institutes offered an excellent array of exercise classes/ options, which enabled the students to continue exercising.

The education system right now really talks about mental health and physical health. Even their physical education is different. So, I think exposure to that will be one of the factors that will enable them to live a healthy lifestyle.” (SS009/31/F)

So, when I went to XXX Poly [polytechnic name], I started Muay Thai. And even the gym was affiliated with XXX [polytechnic name]. So, I’ve been with this gym since the dawn of time. This is my first gym, and I’ve been with them all the way [laughter].” (SS006/25/F)

Analysis of facilitators across the socio-demographic groups revealed differences in the endorsement of sub-themes. Those younger, i.e., below 40 years of age and with tertiary education, endorsed workplace-initiated health promotion as a facilitator more than those aged 40 years and above and with lower education. Those with a lower than tertiary education endorsed built spaces and workstations as a facilitator more than those with tertiary education (Table 2).

Discussion

This article explored the barriers and facilitators of a healthy lifestyle perceived and experienced by a multi-ethnic sample of adults in Singapore. Using a framework analysis approach that comprised two major components: creating an analytic framework and applying this analytic framework, we leveraged the SEM [22] model to gain a deeper understanding of the barriers and facilitators of a healthy lifestyle. The discussion focuses on key themes that lend well to intervention or were unique to this study.

At the personal level, lack of willpower emerged as a key barrier, while being motivated and having the resolve to exercise or not eat sweet or calorie-rich food, despite the challenges, was identified as a facilitator. Willpower, defined as the capacity to exert self-control, has emerged in several studies as a barrier to healthy eating [32, 33] and physical activity [34]. In Tsukayama et al.’s [35] prospective longitudinal study, the researchers found that more self-controlled children were less likely to become overweight as they entered adolescence. Cognitive and behavioural interventions have been developed to promote self-regulation [36] and overcome this barrier. For example, a study among women aged 30–50 showed that a brief intervention combining information with a self-regulation technique led to the maintenance of high consumption of fruits and vegetables 24 months after the intervention. In contrast, the information-only intervention group returned to baseline consumption of fruits and vegetables [37].

Similarly, another study tested an intervention that combined information with cognitive-behavioural strategies on women’s physical activity with an information-only intervention. The women who were randomly assigned to the self-regulation and information session were substantially more active than those who participated in the information-only sessions [38]. While the WoD campaign has ensured the dissemination of information on a healthy lifestyle, there is a need to develop and evaluate interventions that provide information and teach and promote self-regulation. If such interventions are effective, they could be scaled up at the population level.

Environmental factors that emerged as barriers and facilitators were unique to this study. The study period coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, and all the participants mentioned the pandemic as a barrier to adopting a healthy lifestyle. While some participants spoke about the importance of their own ‘willpower’ in maintaining their exercise regimen during the pandemic, they acknowledged the challenge posed by the pandemic. Other studies have similarly reported dramatic lifestyle changes in reducing physical activity with increased sedentary behaviours and reduced physical activity during the Covid-19 pandemic [39, 40]. These unhealthy lifestyle behaviours observed in the pandemic can potentially lead to the persistence of these poor lifestyle habits and the development of chronic diseases. Contact tracing mobile Apps were rolled out very early during the COVID-19 pandemic, in Singapore, mainly as a means of infection control [41]. However, at the national level, there was no imperative to develop or implement apps that could provide information on healthy lifestyles during the period of enforced social isolation. A conversational agent such as Elena+ [42], which provided coaching sessions, behavior change activities, and intention/goal formation to promote a healthy lifestyle during the pandemic, must be culturally adapted and implemented globally. Such digital health interventions are of value both during the pandemic and beyond it to ensure that at-risk populations are engaged in health promotion [42].

This study identified several cultural factors as barriers to adopting a healthy lifestyle. The prevalence of diabetes varies among Chinese, Malay, and Indian ethnicities, and it is often ascribed to dietary differences, especially in the popular media. Interestingly, while some participants of Indian and Malay ethnicities said that their food choices and food preparation might be high in calories, many Chinese participants also commented that traditional Malay or Indian food was too sweet or oily. However, most of our participants acknowledged cross-cultural eating and said they preferred deep-fried or sweet food. They also felt that they ended up eating more of it than low-fat options that were often not spicy or tasty. All the major festivals celebrated in Singapore were identified as periods where people choose not to count calories and enjoy feasting with friends and families, highlighting the importance of traditional food during social gatherings and religious or traditional celebrations. A study on South Asian immigrants in Australia identified a similar theme where participants felt that food was a central theme of social gatherings and indicated their preference for traditional food in these settings [43]. Multilevel interventions targeted towards families, i.e., those that involve children and parents, comprising programs that increase knowledge, willingness to try nutritious food, and encourage menu modifications without compromising on taste, could be trialed in Singapore [44]. Given the importance of family in Asia and the role of interpersonal factors as both barriers and facilitators in this population, such an approach may be both appealing and strategic.

Workplace and technology emerged as significant environmental facilitators. The Health Promotion Board, Singapore, has spearheaded workplace initiatives. They identified workplaces as a critical setting as most adult Singapore residents spend most of their day at work. The focus areas include obesity prevention and management and chronic disease management. They work proactively with companies to support them with the necessary tools to ensure a health-promoting workplace. These initiatives have resulted in many companies providing workplace talks on physical and mental health, organising group physical activities, providing healthy food alternatives in canteens, subsidising the cost of fruits, and distributing fruits and healthy snacks to staff [45]. Technology has been classified as a component of the physical environment’s artificial elements [46]. Given the focus on developing Singapore as a ‘smart nation’ to leverage technology and implement it nationally, the widespread interest and adoption of technology for a healthy lifestyle were not surprising. With the rapid technological advances and integration of smartphones with wearable devices that can assess physical activity, sedentary behavior, heart rate, and intensity levels of physical activity [47], many people prefer wearables as facilitators of a healthy lifestyle.

Furthermore, technological advancement has resulted in better identification and tracking of previously non-identifiable physical activity (e.g., stair climbing, outdoor cycling), which our participants mentioned as particularly appealing as they catered to their lifestyle. Participants also alluded to the persuasive technology that was often incorporated within the wearables. The ability to send their achievements (hours exercised, distance covered, etc.) to online communities or friends with whom they could compete, stay accountable or get encouragement for their achievements was seen as a facilitator by some participants. At the same time, others mentioned the reminders to pause and take deep breaths as being useful in the middle of stress-filled days. Persuasive technology is defined as technology that is designed to change individuals’ attitudes or behaviours through persuasion and social influence, but not through coercion [48]. Technological advances can be used to nudge individuals to engage in more physical activity. This is done by capturing the data and comparing it with historical data; tracking improvement over time; linking data to social media; and sending encouraging messages to the wearer, such as asking them to move more or taking some time for deep breathing or mindfulness. While these are exciting and transformative developments that facilitate the adoption of a healthy lifestyle, little data is available concerning how successful these apps or wearables are at enabling users to lose weight or get fit over time. Research into the effectiveness of many of these technologies is still in its infancy.

Policy-driven changes to the built environment and education curriculum were identified by participants as facilitators of the adoption of a healthy lifestyle. Our study highlights the importance of positioning health promotion in city planning and developing ‘healthy built environments.’ Surprisingly, participants did not mention the ‘utilitarian walking’ encouraged in Singapore due to greater land-use mixes that ensure easy accessibility to various locations in the neighbourhood, like shops, food courts, and primary care services. Instead, they focused mainly on recreational walking enabled by small open places like playgrounds and large parks within walking distance of the residential neighbourhoods. Many pointed out that with other walkability features such as safe sidewalks, covered pathways, and easy accessibility, there was no excuse not to exercise in Singapore. Several other studies in Singapore have similarly established that physical activity levels are closely associated with the built environment characteristics [49, 50].

The incorporation of physical education classes in the school curriculum meets several important objectives. First, it ensures that students participate in appropriate amounts of physical activity during lessons. Secondly, they become equipped with the knowledge and skills to be physically active throughout life [51]. Several participants referred to the need to incorporate physical activities into the routine right from childhood as they felt that children who learn these skills would use them lifelong. And that it is more difficult to convince older adults to do physical activities, especially if they have not done them before. However, schools should consider providing a diverse range of physical activity experiences so that the needs and interests of all children are met. Schools should also consider incorporating healthy eating practices as part of their curriculum to reduce the risk of childhood obesity further and promote lifelong healthy nutritional practices [52].

There are some limitations to our study. Since the study was planned before the COVID-19 pandemic, in the early part of the study, the team did not have specific questions or probes that examined factors that could be related to the pandemic. The pandemic may have also limited those who were not technologically savvy or worried about the impact of the infection from participating in the study. The pandemic experience may have coloured the participants’ attitudes towards healthy lifestyles, i.e., they may have had a more positive attitude toward it, given the higher risk of poor Covid-19 infections amongst those with multimorbidity and other lifestyle-associated risk factors. While the study allowed the participants to define what a healthy lifestyle meant to them, the discussion on barriers and facilitators centred mainly around physical activity and nutrition. There was limited discussion around other aspects of a healthy lifestyle, like using tobacco, alcohol, sleep, and mental health. The authors could not link the quantitative and qualitative data due to ethical considerations. During the qualitative phase, we did not collect such data (BMI, smoking habits, etc.), limiting a deeper understanding of the participant’s narratives. The strengths of our study include a good representation of people across ethnic groups and languages in a multi-ethnic population. The use of one-to-one interviews that led to frank discussions on barriers and facilitators and the inclusion of data from 30 interviews ensured thematic saturation. The qualitative researchers involved in this study came from different disciplines, thus providing a transdisciplinary understanding of the phenomenon under study. Lastly, the study results triangulate well with other studies examining barriers and facilitators of healthy lifestyles.

Conclusions

Our study found that participants were aware of the several steps undertaken by the Singapore Government to promote a healthy lifestyle. The school-based and workplace health-promoting activities were seen as promoting and ensuring the adoption of a healthy lifestyle. Participants were also cognisant of the built environment in Singapore that encourages adopting a healthy lifestyle. However, despite these consistent efforts by the Singapore Government, participants identified several barriers to adopting a healthy lifestyle. Personal and interpersonal factors like willpower, self-regulation, and influence from family and peers were identified as important barriers. On the other hand, devices for monitoring activities and diet emerged as significant facilitators that can be further leveraged to improve the health of populations.

Most of the barriers identified are amenable to interventions. Incorporating educational material with motivational techniques, short interventions to improve self-regulation delivered by health care professions, multilevel interventions targeted at families, and nudge technology to promote a healthy lifestyle should be explored in future studies.

Supporting information

S1 File. Semi-structured interview guide.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because of ethical and institutional regulations. Data are available from the Institute of Mental Health Institutional Research Review Committee (contact via research@imh.com.sg) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

Funding Statement

SAC received the funding NMRC/HSRG/0085/2018 This study is supported by the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council under its Health Services Research Grant https://www.nmrc.gov.sg/who-we-are The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Crimmins EM. Lifespan and Healthspan: Past, Present, and Promise. Gerontologist. 2015;55:901–11. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnv130 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Ten great public health achievements-United States, 2001–2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011;60(19): 619–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.McKeown RE. The epidemiologic transition: Changing patterns of mortality and population dynamics. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2009;3(1 Suppl):19S–26S. doi: 10.1177/1559827609335350 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Elwyn G, Laitner S, Coulter A, Walker E, Watson P, Thomson R. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ. 2010;341:c5146. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5146 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Resnik DB. Responsibility for health: personal, social, and environmental. J Med Ethics. 2007. Aug;33(8):444–5. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.017574 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.World Health Organisation. What is a healthy lifestyle? EUR/ICP/LVNG 01 07 02. E66134. WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Pender NJ, Murdaugh CL, Parsons MA. Health Promotion in Nursing Practice. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Cardel MI, Szurek SM, Dillard JR, Dilip A, Miller DR, Theis R, et al. Perceived barriers/facilitators to a healthy lifestyle among diverse adolescents with overweight/obesity: A qualitative study. Obes Sci Pract. 2020;6:638–48. doi: 10.1002/osp4.448 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Murray J, Craigs CL, Hill KM, Honey S, House A. A systematic review of patient-reported factors associated with uptake and completion of cardiovascular lifestyle behaviour change. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2012;12:120. doi: 10.1186/1471-2261-12-120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kelly S, Martin S, Kuhn I, Cowan A, Brayne C, Lafortune L. Barriers and facilitators to the uptake and maintenance of healthy behaviours by people at mid-life: A rapid systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2016;1(1):e0145074. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145074 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Perera M, Arambepola C, Gillison F, Peacock O, Thompson D. Perceived barriers and facilitators of physical activity in adults living in activity-friendly urban environments: A qualitative study in Sri Lanka. PLoS One. 2022;17(6):e0268817. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268817 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Shrestha A, Pyakurel P, Shrestha A, Gautam R, Manandhar N, Rhodes E, et al. Facilitators and barriers to healthy eating in a worksite cafeteria: a qualitative study from Nepal. Heart Asia. 2017;9(2):e010956. doi: 10.1136/heartasia-2017-010956 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chandra A, Nongkynrih B. Facilitators and barriers of physical activity in prevention and control of NCD-A qualitative study in North India. J Trop Med Health. 2019;3:144. doi: 10.29011/JTMH-144.000044 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Department of Statistics, Singapore. Census of population, population trends, 2021. Available: https://www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/publications/population/population2018.pdf [Accessed 5th March 2022] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Epidemiology & Disease Control Division, Ministry of Health, Singapore; Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. The Burden of Disease in Singapore, 1990–2017: An overview of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 results. Seattle, WA: IHME, 2019. Available online at https://www.healthdata.org/sites/default/files/files/policy_report/2019/GBD_2017_Singapore_Report.pdf Last accessed on 24 October 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Subramaniam M, Abdin E, Vaingankar JA, Sambasivam R, Seow E, Picco L, et al. Successful ageing in Singapore: prevalence and correlates from a national survey of older adults. Singapore Med J. 2019;60:22–30. doi: 10.11622/smedj.2018050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sloan RA. Moving towards an active living society. A view from Singapore. ASPETAR Sports Med J. 2015;4:248–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Goh O. Successful Ageing—A Review of Singapore’s Policy Approaches. Civil Service College, Singapore: Singapore, 2006. Available at: https://www.csc.gov.sg/articles/successful-ageing-a-review-of-singapore%27s-policy-approaches. Last accessed on 24 October 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Nanditha A, Ma RC, Ramachandran A, Snehalatha C, Chan JC, Chia KS, et al. Diabetes in Asia and the Pacific: Implications for the Global Epidemic. Diabetes Care. 2016;39: 472–85. doi: 10.2337/dc15-1536 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ministry of Health Singapore. Update on the war on diabetes. MOH COS 2020 Factsheet. Available online at https://www.moh.gov.sg/docs/librariesprovider5/cos2020/cos-2020—update-on-war-on-diabetes.pdf. Last accessed on 11th August 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hill JO, Galloway JM, Goley A, Marrero DG, Minners R, Montgomery B, et al. Scientific statement: Socio-ecological determinants of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2013;36:2430–9. doi: 10.2337/dc13-1161 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q. 1988;15:351–37. doi: 10.1177/109019818801500401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.AshaRani PV, Abdin E, Kumarasan R, Siva Kumar FD, Shafie S, Jeyagurunathan A, et al. Study protocol for a nationwide Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP) survey on diabetes in Singapore’s general population. BMJ Open. 2020;10(6):e037125. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037125 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sandelowski M. Focus on quantitative methods: Sample sizes, in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health. 1995;18:179–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Jepson R, Harris FM, Bowes A, Robertson R, Avan G, Sheikh A. Physical activity in South Asians: an in-depth qualitative study to explore motivations and facilitators. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e45333. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045333 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Donaldson-Feilder E, Lewis R, Pavey L, Jones B, Green M, Webster A. Perceived barriers and facilitators of exercise and healthy dietary choices: A study of employees and managers within a large transport organisation. Health Educ J. 2017;76(6):661–75. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kvale S, Brinkmann S. Interviews. In: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In Bryman A. & Burgess R. (Eds.), Analyzing qualitative data (pp. 305–329). Routledge; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ward DJ, Furber C, Tierney S, Swallow V. Using Framework Analysis in nursing research: a worked example. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69(11):2423–31. doi: 10.1111/jan.12127 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Srivastava A, Thomson SB. Framework Analysis: A Qualitative Methodology for Applied Policy Research. J Admin Gov. 2009;4(2):72–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Spencer L. Ritchie J., O’Connor W., Morrell G., & Ormston R. Analysis in practice. In Ritchie J., Lewis J., McNaughton Nicholls C., & Ormston R. (Eds.), Qualitative research practice, 2nd ed., pp. 282. London, UK: SAGE; 2014 [Google Scholar]
  • 32.McMorrow L, Ludbrook A, Macdiarmid JI, Olajide D. Perceived barriers towards healthy eating and their association with fruit and vegetable consumption. J Public Health. 2017;39:330–8. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdw038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Wongprawmas R, Sogari G, Menozzi D, Mora C. Strategies to Promote Healthy Eating Among University Students: A Qualitative Study Using the Nominal Group Technique. Front Nutr. 2022;9:821016. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.821016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Justine M, Azizan A, Hassan V, Salleh Z, Manaf H. Barriers to participation in physical activity and exercise among middle-aged and elderly individuals. Singapore Med J. 2013; 54(10):581–6. doi: 10.11622/smedj.2013203 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Tsukayama E, Toomey SL, Faith MS, Duckworth AL. Self-control as a protective factor against overweight status in the transition from childhood to adolescence. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(7):631–5. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.97 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Smith T, Panfil K, Bailey C, Kirkpatrick K. Cognitive and behavioral training interventions to promote self-control. J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn. 2019;45(3):259–79. doi: 10.1037/xan0000208 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Stadler G, Oettingen G, Gollwitzer PM. Intervention effects of information and self-regulation on eating fruits and vegetables over two years. Health Psychol. 2010;29(3): 274–83. doi: 10.1037/a0018644 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Stadler G, Oettingen G, Gollwitzer PM. Physical activity in women: effects of a self-regulation intervention. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(1):29–34. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.09.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Giuntella O, Hyde K, Saccardo S, Sadoff S. Lifestyle and mental health disruptions during COVID-19. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2021;118(9):e2016632118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2016632118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Caroppo E, Mazza M, Sannella A, Marano G, Avallone C, Claro AE, et al. Will nothing be the same again?: Changes in lifestyle during COVID-19 pandemic and consequences on mental health. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(16):8433. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18168433 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Lee T, Lee H. Tracing surveillance and auto-regulation in Singapore:‘smart’responses to COVID-19. Media Int. Aust. 2020;177:47–60 [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ollier J, Neff S, Dworschak C, Sejdiji A, Santhanam P, Keller R, et al. Elena+ Care for COVID-19, a Pandemic Lifestyle Care Intervention: Intervention Design and Study Protocol. Front Public Health. 2021;9:625640. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.625640 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Nisar M, Khan A, Kolbe-Alexander TL. ‘Cost, culture and circumstances’: Barriers and enablers of health behaviours in South Asian immigrants of Australia. Health Soc Care Community. 2022; 18th February. doi: 10.1111/hsc.13759 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Blue Bird Jernigan V, Taniguchi T, Haslam A, Williams MB, Maudrie TL, Nikolaus CJ, et al. Design and methods of a participatory healthy eating intervention for indigenous children: The FRESH Study. Front Public Health. 2022;10:790008. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.790008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Health Promotion Board. Workplace 2020. Available online at https://www.hpb.gov.sg/workplace [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gadais T, Boulanger M, Trudeau F, Rivard MC. Environments favorable to healthy lifestyles: A systematic review of initiatives in Canada. J Sport Health Sci. 2018;(1):7–18. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2017.09.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Graham DJ, Hipp JA. Emerging technologies to promote and evaluate physical activity: Cutting-edge research and future directions. Front Public Health. 2014;2:66. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2014.00066 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Dominic D, Hounkponou F, Doh R, Ansong E, Brighter A. Promoting physical activity through persuasive technology. Int J Invent Eng Sci. 2013;2:16–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Tao Y, Zhang W, Gou Z, Jiang B, Qi Y. Planning walkable neighborhoods for “Aging in Place”: Lessons from five aging-friendly districts in Singapore. Sustainability. 2021; 13(4):1742. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Song S, Yap W, Hou Y, Yuen B. Neighbourhood built environment, physical activity, and physical health among older adults in Singapore: A simultaneous equations approach. J Transp Health. 2020;18:100881. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Simons-Morton BG. Implementing health-related physical education. In Pate RR and Hohn RC. (eds), Health and Fitness Through Physical Education. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, 1994;137–46. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Swindle T, Rutledge JM, Selig JP, Painter J, Zhang D, Martin J, et al. Obesity prevention practices in early care and education settings: an adaptive implementation trial. Implementation Sci. 2022;17:25. doi: 10.1186/s13012-021-01185-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Eliana Carraça

1 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-13181Barriers and Facilitators for adopting a healthy lifestyle in a multi-ethnic population: A qualitative studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mythily Subramaniam,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

The topic of this paper is of interest to the Plos One scientific community. Adherence to healthy lifestyle behaviours remains a challenge, thus exploring which factors might facilitate or hinder the adoption of these behaviours is critical to improve intervention’s design and efficacy. Still, the current paper does not show the novelty of this study. This should be made totally clear in all sections of the paper, but most importantly in the introduction and discussion sections. Authors are also advised to be more specific and support all affirmations in the literature.

The methodology should be clearer, especially regarding the process of development of the instrument and how the framework analysis was conducted.

The impact of COVID on recruitment and on this study should be discussed, as these results could be different in a normal, non-COVID, situation. Being the first study on the Singapore population, this should be interpreted with caution and unlikely generalisable. Therefore, avoid using terms that imply that your findings are comprehensive and generalisable to all Singapore population within the same age range.

Grammatical errors should be carefully revised.

The authors should pay close attention to the reviewers’ comments, carefully addressing all of them.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 15 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Eliana Carraça

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf  and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This study is supported by the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council under its Health Services Research Grant (NMRC/HSRG/0085/2018).”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“SAC received the funding

NMRC/HSRG/0085/2018

This study is supported by the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council under its Health Services Research Grant

https://www.nmrc.gov.sg/who-we-are

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper provides interesting insight into the barriers and facilitators to adopting healthy lifestyles among adults in Singapore. The paper is clear and well written and I appreciate the inclusion of the interview guide. I would suggest the following revisions to improve the manuscript:

1) As the authors note, many studies have been published describing barriers and facilitators to healthy lifestyle practices. While this study is novel in its focus on Singapore, the results do not seem to differ much at all from the large body of work on this topic. It would be useful in the discussion to frame how the findings of this study compare to other similar studies. Are there barriers and facilitators specific to adults in Singapore that could be targeting in a healthy lifestyle intervention?

2) Authors make the claim that this study provides a "comprehensive" understanding of barriers and facilitators (pg 5). I am not sure this claim can be made with a fairly small sample (n=30). The paper can still bring forward important findings without being comprehensive.

3) Pg 8: spell out "SSI" on first use

4) Pg 8, table 1: Given the important of education level and adoption of healthy lifestyle habits (as the authors mention in the introduction), it's surprising that education is not included in the demographics. It would also be interesting to see how barriers and facilitators differed among those with varying levels of education.

5) Similarly to the comment above, it would have been nice to see a segmentation of the data by demographics. For example, are barriers and facilitators different for men and women? Older and younger people? By ethnicity and/or language?

6) pg 14: What is meant by "hawker center" in the quote? Provide definition or use a different quote.

7) pg 16: What is meant by "community exercises"? Is this physical activity opportunities in the community?

8) Informed consent was collected from all participants. Was the study protocol reviewed and approved by an institutional review board?

9) In the introduction, the authors state that this paper will contribute to developing interventions to promote healthy lifestyles among people in Singapore, where diabetes and other chronic conditions are on the rise. I would therefore expect to see explicit recommendations in the discussion or conclusion for interventions tailored to this context. Most of the recommendations mentioned (PA/healthy eating in schools, built environment to promote PA) have been well studied and documented in other contexts and are not novel or innovative. In the revision, I suggest the authors consider what this data adds to the literature and how it can be used to inform intervention development.

10) Various grammatical errors were noted throughout the manuscript (see comments in attached PDF). Suggest careful re-reading and editing for clarity.

Reviewer #2: Please see the review comments in the PDF document. I have highlighted the comments.

Overall, the paper does not show the novelty of this study, even though (as argued but not substantiated) that Singapore has yet to be the focus of such a study.

If authors proceed with a revision, care and clarification is necessary with the manuscript revision to demonstrate study rigor and allow for replication. Further, authors should revisit the discussion and conclusion to 1) enhance the limitations section, and 2) truly demonstrate why this study is novel and important in PLOS One

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-13181_reviewer_JRH.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-13181_reviewer.pdf

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 2;17(11):e0277106. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277106.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


26 Aug 2022

27 August 2022

Eliana Carraça

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Ref: PONE-D-22-13181

Barriers and Facilitators for adopting a healthy lifestyle in a multi-ethnic population: A qualitative study

Dear Dr. Carraca

We would like to thank you and the reviewers for your constructive review. We have addressed the points raised by the reviewers in the revised manuscript in as tracked changes. Our replies to their comments are attached and highlighted in bold for easy reference. The major comments on the pdf have been addressed separately as we are not sure which reviewer has commented on them. The minor comments have been addressed directly in the text as tracked changes.

Academic Editor

The topic of this paper is of interest to the Plos One scientific community. Adherence to healthy lifestyle behaviours remains a challenge, thus exploring which factors might facilitate or hinder the adoption of these behaviours is critical to improve intervention’s design and efficacy. Still, the current paper does not show the novelty of this study. This should be made totally clear in all sections of the paper, but most importantly in the introduction and discussion sections. Authors are also advised to be more specific and support all affirmations in the literature.

We have added relevant references and clarified the novel aspects of this study.

The methodology should be clearer, especially regarding the process of development of the instrument and how the framework analysis was conducted.

The methodology has been substantially revised as suggested by the reviewers.

The impact of COVID on recruitment and on this study should be discussed, as these results could be different in a normal, non-COVID, situation. Being the first study on the Singapore population, this should be interpreted with caution and unlikely generalisable. Therefore, avoid using terms that imply that your findings are comprehensive and generalisable to all Singapore population within the same age range.

We have avoided the use of terms that suggest that the findings are comprehensive and generalizable.

Grammatical errors should be carefully revised.

Grammatical errors have been revised.

Journal Requirements

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This study is supported by the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council under its Health Services Research Grant (NMRC/HSRG/0085/2018).”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“SAC received the funding

NMRC/HSRG/0085/2018

This study is supported by the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council under its Health Services Research Grant

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

We would like to retain the statement as it is in the online submission form. We have removed the statement in the revised manuscript.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: https://imsva91-ctp.trendmicro.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=http%3a%2f%2fjournals.plos.org%2fplosone%2fs%2fdata%2davailability%23loc%2dunacceptable%2ddata%2daccess%2drestrictions&umid=C1935020-E531-7305-AE14-9D67384FA132&auth=6e3fe59570831a389716849e93b5d483c90c3fe4-a54b28680ec209732c5562257d5ed9d73bc73984. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Revised data availability statement: The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the first author Dr Mythily Subramaniam (Mythily@imh.com.sg)

Reviewer: 1

1) As the authors note, many studies have been published describing barriers and facilitators to healthy lifestyle practices. While this study is novel in its focus on Singapore, the results do not seem to differ much at all from the large body of work on this topic. It would be useful in the discussion to frame how the findings of this study compare to other similar studies. Are there barriers and facilitators specific to adults in Singapore that could be targeting in a healthy lifestyle intervention?

We would like to thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have revised our introduction to address how the study is different from others that have been carried out in other countries.

2) Authors make the claim that this study provides a "comprehensive" understanding of barriers and facilitators (pg 5). I am not sure this claim can be made with a fairly small sample (n=30). The paper can still bring forward important findings without being comprehensive.

We have removed the word ‘comprehensive’.

3) Pg 8: spell out "SSI" on first use

We apologise for the error and have added the full form as suggested by the reviewer.

4) Pg 8, table 1: Given the important of education level and adoption of healthy lifestyle habits (as the authors mention in the introduction), it's surprising that education is not included in the demographics. It would also be interesting to see how barriers and facilitators differed among those with varying levels of education.

We have included the educational backgrounds of the participants in the revised table.

5) Similarly to the comment above, it would have been nice to see a segmentation of the data by demographics. For example, are barriers and facilitators different for men and women? Older and younger people? By ethnicity and/or language?

We are unable to do such an analysis as the study design was set up to get a good representation across the groups but did not set out to examine differences across the groups. The sample size does not lend to such a nuanced segmentation and we apologise for that.

6) pg 14: What is meant by "hawker center" in the quote? Provide definition or use a different quote.

We have explained what is meant by a ‘hawker center’. We think it is important to retain this quote as it highlights the availability of affordable food which is often not healthy.

7) pg 16: What is meant by "community exercises"? Is this physical activity opportunities in the community?

We have clarified the term by changing it to community-based group exercise programs for clarity.

8) Informed consent was collected from all participants. Was the study protocol reviewed and approved by an institutional review board?

Yes, we have clearly stated just below the statement on consent that - ethical approval for the study was obtained from the relevant institutional review board (National Healthcare Group Domain Specific Review Board; protocol ref:2019/00926).

9) In the introduction, the authors state that this paper will contribute to developing interventions to promote healthy lifestyles among people in Singapore, where diabetes and other chronic conditions are on the rise. I would therefore expect to see explicit recommendations in the discussion or conclusion for interventions tailored to this context. Most of the recommendations mentioned (PA/healthy eating in schools, built environment to promote PA) have been well studied and documented in other contexts and are not novel or innovative. In the revision, I suggest the authors consider what this data adds to the literature and how it can be used to inform intervention development.

We have revised our discussion and conclusion as suggested by the reviewer.

10) Various grammatical errors were noted throughout the manuscript (see comments in attached PDF). Suggest careful re-reading and editing for clarity.

We have revised the manuscript as suggested by the reviewer.

Reviewer #2:

Please see the review comments in the PDF document. I have highlighted the comments.

Main comments in the pdf

Introduction

1. Authors should take a paragraph or two to summarize the studies in Asia populations. This would help to demonstrate why a specifically cultural focus/regional focus is important.

We have added a paragraph focusing on Asian studies in the revised manuscript.

2. At some point, authors need to explain why the study reported here is focused on general health behaviors vs. Diabetes related health behaviors, as the parent study is a diabetes study. Otherwise, authors are encouraged to situate these findings within health behaviors around Diabetes.

As we have stated in the revised manuscript the intent of the study was to examine barriers and faciltators to healthy lifestyle in the broader context of general health behaviors which have been promoted at the policy level in Singapore. While the larger study was towards knowledge, attitudes and practices towards diabetes, the questions on lifestyle were general and not towards diabetes related health behaviors (Koh YS, Asharani PV, Devi F, Roystonn K, Wang P, Vaingankar JA, Abdin E, Sum CF, Lee ES, Müller-Riemenschneider F, Chong SA, Subramaniam M. A cross-sectional study on the perceived barriers to physical activity and their associations with domain-specific physical activity and sedentary behaviour. BMC Public Health. 2022 May 26;22(1):1051. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13431-2). This was also in consultation with diabetologists who opined that diabetes was often associated with other comorbid conditions and risk factors for several NCIDs were common. Thus, it was decided to understand general health behaviors. We have clarified this in the methodology.

Methodology

3. Please clarify: was this sampling method used for the parent study AND the interview component or both or just the interview component? If a specific sampling method was conducted (were there only 30 people who agreed to be recontacted from the survey? Probably not). So how did authors select FOR RECRUITMENT those who said they’d be willing to be contacted.

We have clarified the sampling method for the parent study. For the current study the participants were sampled randomly from those who gave consent for recontact. We have clarified the process in the methodology.

4. Are authors claiming that there were no a priori coding structures? If so, why use framework analysis?

We would like to respectfully state that a framework analysis can be used without apriori coding structures. We have further expanded the steps to explain what we did. While our initial coding was guided by our research questions and hence the topic guide, we did not use apriori coding.

Framework analysis in applied research have varied from highly deductive analysis (Pope et al., 2000) to inductively-oriented approaches in healthcare research (e.g., Goldsmith et al., 2017; Swallow et al., 2011).

Results

5. Specify cis, trans, nonbinary gender participants.

None of the participants identified themselves as cis/ trans or non-binary.

6. Authors should describe more about the participants in this sample: rurality, occupation (or employment), wealth or income, some measure of health (healthy weight? Health behavior such as smoking?). Readers need to understand more about the sample for this interview cohort.

We have described the sample in Table 1. Singapore is a highly urbanised city-state, there is no rural area in Singapore. We did not link health data to the qualitative interviews, and we have acknowledged it as a limitation of the study. We have added education and employment data.

Overall, the paper does not show the novelty of this study, even though (as argued but not substantiated) that Singapore has yet to be the focus of such a study.

We have revised our introduction to substantiate the novelty of the study.

If authors proceed with a revision, care and clarification is necessary with the manuscript revision to demonstrate study rigor and allow for replication. Further, authors should revisit the discussion and conclusion to 1) enhance the limitations section, and 2) truly demonstrate why this study is novel and important in PLOS One

We have made the changes suggested by the reviewers.

We hope that we have addressed the reviewers’ comments adequately and we look forward to a favourable reply.

Regards

Authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

Decision Letter 1

Eliana Carraça

2 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-13181R1Barriers and Facilitators for adopting a healthy lifestyle in a multi-ethnic population: A qualitative studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Subramaniam,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:The manuscript was improved, but there are still some issues that need to be properly addressed. Please see the comments in the attached file. Make sure you reply to all comments, including those left in the previous response letter to reviewers.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by October 20. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Eliana Carraça

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-13181_R1_Ed.pdf

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 2;17(11):e0277106. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277106.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


18 Oct 2022

15 October 2022

Eliana Carraça

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Ref: PONE-D-22-13181R1

Barriers and Facilitators for adopting a healthy lifestyle in a multi-ethnic population: A qualitative study

Dear Dr. Carraca

We would like to thank you and the reviewers for the second review. We have addressed the points raised by the reviewers in the revised manuscript as tracked changes. Our replies to their comments are attached and highlighted in bold for easy reference in our reply.

Academic Editor

The manuscript was improved, but there are still some issues that need to be properly addressed. Please see the comments in the attached file. Make sure you reply to all comments, including those left in the previous response letter to reviewers.

We have addressed all the comments in the attached file.

Reviewer: 1

(Comments in pdf file and response to our Reply to the reviewers)

We want to thank the reviewer for once again going through our article carefully and providing us with invaluable insights. The changes suggested in the language have been incorporated directly as tracked changes in the manuscript.

We have analysed the themes by socio-demographic groups and presented the data.

We hope we have addressed the reviewers’ comments adequately and look forward to a favourable reply.

Regards

Authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers October.doc

Decision Letter 2

Eliana Carraça

20 Oct 2022

Barriers and Facilitators for adopting a healthy lifestyle in a multi-ethnic population: A qualitative study

PONE-D-22-13181R2

Dear Dr. Subramaniam,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Eliana Carraça

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Eliana Carraça

24 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-13181R2

Barriers and Facilitators for adopting a healthy lifestyle in a multi-ethnic population: A qualitative study

Dear Dr. Subramaniam:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Eliana Carraça

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Semi-structured interview guide.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-13181_reviewer_JRH.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-13181_reviewer.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-13181_R1_Ed.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers October.doc

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly because of ethical and institutional regulations. Data are available from the Institute of Mental Health Institutional Research Review Committee (contact via research@imh.com.sg) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES