Dataset Information

The Newcastle exercise project: a randomised controlled trial of methods to promote physical activity in primary care.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of combinations of three methods to promote physical activity.

Design

Randomised controlled trial. Baseline assessment with post-intervention follow up at 12 weeks and 1 year.

Setting

One urban general practice, 1995-7.

Participants

523 adults aged 40 to 64 years, randomised to four intervention groups and a control group.

Interventions

Brief (one interview) or intensive (six interviews over 12 weeks) motivational interviewing based on the stages of change model of behaviour change, with or without financial incentive (30 vouchers entitling free access to leisure facilities).

Main outcome measures

Physical activity score; sessions of moderate and vigorous activity in the preceding four weeks.

Results

Response rate was 81% at 12 weeks and 85% at one year. More participants in the intervention group reported increased physical activity scores at 12 weeks than controls (38% v 16%, difference 22%, 95% confidence interval for difference 13% to 32%), with a 55% increase observed in those offered six interviews plus vouchers. Vigorous activity increased in 29% of intervention participants and 11% of controls (difference 18%, 10% to 26%), but differences between the intervention groups were not significant. Short term increases in activity were not sustained, regardless of intensity of intervention.

Conclusions

The most effective intervention for promoting adoption of exercise was the most intensive. Even this did not promote long term adherence to exercise. Brief interventions promoting physical activity that are used by many schemes in the United Kingdom are of questionable effectiveness.

SUBMITTER: Harland J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC314213 | biostudies-literature | 1999 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Newcastle exercise project: a randomised controlled trial of methods to promote physical activity in primary care.

Harland J J White M M Drinkwater C C Chinn D D Farr L L Howel D D

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 19990901 7213

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the effectiveness of combinations of three methods to promote physical activity.<h4>Design</h4>Randomised controlled trial. Baseline assessment with post-intervention follow up at 12 weeks and 1 year.<h4>Setting</h4>One urban general practice, 1995-7.<h4>Participants</h4>523 adults aged 40 to 64 years, randomised to four intervention groups and a control group.<h4>Interventions</h4>Brief (one interview) or intensive (six interviews over 12 weeks) motivational interv ...[more]

PMID: 10496829

Similar Datasets

Project description:Low physical activity is a major public health problem. New cost-effective approaches that stimulate meaningful long-term changes in physical activity are required, especially within primary care settings. It is becoming clear that there are various dimensions to physical activity with independent health benefits. Advances in technology mean that it is now possible to generate multidimensional physical activity 'profiles' that provide a more complete representation of physical activity and offer a variety of options that can be tailored to the individual. Mi-PACT is a randomised controlled trial designed to examine whether personalised multidimensional physical activity feedback and self-monitoring alongside trainer-supportive sessions increases physical activity and improves health outcomes in at-risk men and women.We aim to recruit 216 patients from within primary care aged 40 to 70 years and at medium or high risk of cardiovascular disease and/or type II diabetes mellitus. Adopting an unequal allocation ratio (intervention: control) of 2:1, participants will be randomised to one of two groups, usual care or the intervention. The control group will receive usual care from their general practitioner (GP) and standardised messages about physical activity for health. The intervention group will receive physical activity monitors and access to a web-based platform for a 3-month period to enable self-monitoring and the provision of personalised feedback regarding the multidimensional nature of physical activity. In addition, this technology-enabled feedback will be discussed with participants on 5 occasions during supportive one-to-one coaching sessions across the 3-month intervention. The primary outcome measure is physical activity, which will be directly assessed using activity monitors for a 7-day period at baseline, post intervention and at 12 months. Secondary measures (at these time-points) include weight loss, fat mass, and markers of metabolic control, motivation and well-being.Results from this study will provide insight into the effects of integrated physical activity profiling and self-monitoring combined with in-person support on physical activity and health outcomes in patients at risk of future chronic disease.ISRCTN18008011 Trial registration date: 31 July 2013.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Physical inactivity is the fourth leading risk factor for global mortality. Reducing sedentary behaviour and increasing physical activity are efficacious for improving many physical and mental health conditions including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and depression. Reducing sedentary behaviour and increasing physical activity can also be effective at reducing obesity; however, sedentary behaviour and reduced physical activity are also associated with mortality independently. Despite this, most adults in the UK do not currently meet the UK Chief Medical Officers' guidelines for weekly physical activity. As most adults visit their general practitioner at least once a year, the primary care consultation provides a unique opportunity to deliver exercise referral or physical activity promotion interventions. This is a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials for the effectiveness of physical activity promotion and referral in primary care. METHODS:A comprehensive literature search of Embase, MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science (Core Collection), Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and The Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) will be conducted for studies with a minimum follow-up of 12 months that report physical activity as an outcome measure (by either self-report or objective measures) including an intention to treat analysis. The authors will screen papers, first by title and abstract and then by full text, independently assess studies for inclusion, appraise risk of bias and extract data. The quality of the evidence will be assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations) approach. The primary outcome will be participation in physical activity at 12 months. Pooled effects will be calculated using random effects models. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and for presentation at UK national primary care conferences. DISCUSSION:This systematic review and meta-analyses will summarise the evidence for the effectiveness of physical activity promotion and referral as interventions for improving physical activity, as well as whether studies using objective measures of physical activity have similar effects to those studies using self-report measures. This knowledge has importance for primary care clinicians, patients and, given the focus of the recent NHS long-term plan on preventive medicine, those making policy decisions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:The protocol is registered with PROSPERO the international prospective register of systematic reviews, ID CRD42019130831.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Physical inactivity is associated with increased health risks. Primary care providers (PCPs) are well positioned to support increased physical activity (PA) levels through screening and provision of PA prescriptions. However, PCP counseling on PA is not common. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to assess the feasibility of implementing an electronic health (eHealth) tool to support PA counseling by PCPs and estimate intervention effectiveness on patients' PA levels. METHODS:A pragmatic pilot study was conducted using a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial design. The study was conducted at a single primary care clinic, with 4 pre-existing PCP teams. Adult patients who had a periodic health review (PHR) scheduled during the study period were invited to participate. The eHealth tool involved an electronic survey sent to participants before their PHR via an email or a tablet; data were used to automatically produce tailored resources and a PA prescription in the electronic medical record of participants in the intervention arm. Participants assigned to the control arm received usual care from their PCP. Feasibility was assessed by the proportion of completed surveys and patient-reported acceptability and fidelity measures. The primary effectiveness outcome was patient-reported PA at 4 months post-PHR, measured as metabolic equivalent of task (MET) minutes per week. Secondary outcomes assessed determinants of PA, including self-efficacy and intention to change based on the Health Action Process Approach behavior change theory. RESULTS:A total of 1028 patients receiving care from 34 PCPs were invited to participate and 530 (51.55%) consented (intervention [n=296] and control [n=234]). Of the participants who completed a process evaluation, almost half (88/178, 49.4%) stated they received a PA prescription, with only 42 receiving the full intervention including tailored resources from their PCP. A cluster-level linear regression analysis yielded a non-statistically significant positive difference in MET-minutes reported per week at follow-up between intervention and control conditions (mean difference 1027; 95% CI -155 to 2209; P=.09). No statistically significant differences were observed for secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:Our results suggest that it is feasible to build an eHealth tool that screens and provides tailored resources for PA in a primary care setting but suboptimal intervention fidelity suggests greater work must be done to address PCP barriers to resource distribution. Participant responses to the primary effectiveness outcome (MET-minutes) were highly variable, reflecting a need for more robust measures of PA in future trials to address limitations in patient-reported data. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03181295; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03181295.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether trials of physical activity promotion based in primary care show sustained effects on physical activity or fitness in sedentary adults, and whether exercise referral interventions are more effective than other interventions.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesMedline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, the Cochrane Library, and article reference lists.Review methodsReview of randomised controlled trials of physical activity promotion in sedentary adults recruited in primary care, with minimum follow-up of 12 months, reporting physical activity or fitness (or both) as outcomes, and using intention to treat analyses. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, appraised risk of bias, and extracted data. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using a random effects model.ResultsWe included 15 trials (n=8745). Most interventions took place in primary care, included health professionals in delivery, and involved advice or counselling given face to face or by phone (or both) on multiple occasions. Only three trials investigated exercise referral. In 13 trials presenting self reported physical activity, we saw small to medium positive intervention effects at 12 months (odds ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.73; standardised mean difference 0.25, 0.11 to 0.38). The number needed to treat with an intervention for one additional sedentary adult to meet internationally recommended levels of activity at 12 months was 12 (7 to 33). In four trials reporting cardiorespiratory fitness, a medium positive effect at 12 months was non-significant (standardised mean difference 0.51, -0.18 to 1.20). Three trials of exercise referral found small non-significant effects on self reported physical activity at 12 months (odds ratio 1.38; 0.98 to 1.95; standardised mean difference 0.20, -0.21 to 0.61).ConclusionsPromotion of physical activity to sedentary adults recruited in primary care significantly increases physical activity levels at 12 months, as measured by self report. We found insufficient evidence to recommend exercise referral schemes over advice or counselling interventions. Primary care commissioners should consider these findings while awaiting further trial evaluation of exercise referral schemes and other primary care interventions, with longer follow-up and use of objective measures of outcome.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Studies had not yet overcome the most relevant barriers to physical activity (PA) adherence. An exercise referral scheme (ERS) with mechanisms to promote social support might enhance adherence to PA in the long term. SETTING:A randomised controlled trial in 10 primary care centres in Spain. OBJECTIVE:To assess the effectiveness of a primary care-based ERS linked to municipal resources and enhancing social support and social participation in establishing adherence to PA among adults over a 15-month period. PARTICIPANTS:422 insufficiently active participants suffering from at least one chronic condition were included. 220 patients (69.5 (8.4) years; 136 women) were randomly allocated to the intervention group (IG) and 202 (68.2 (8.9) years; 121 women) to the control group (CG). INTERVENTIONS:The IG went through a 12-week standardised ERS linked to community resources and with inclusion of mechanisms to enhance social support. The CG received usual care from their primary care practice. OUTCOMES:The main outcome measure was self-report PA with the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and secondary outcomes included stages of change and social support to PA practice. DATA COLLECTION:Participant-level data were collected via questionnaires at baseline, and at months 3, 9 and 15. BLINDING:The study statistician and research assessors were blinded to group allocation. RESULTS:Compared with usual care, follow-up data at month 15 for the ERS group showed a significant increase of self-reported PA (IG: 1373±1845?metabolic equivalents (MET) min/week, n=195; CG: 919±1454?MET min/week, n=144; P=0.009). Higher adherence (in terms of a more active stage of change) was associated with higher PA level at baseline and with social support. CONCLUSIONS:Prescription from ordinary primary care centres staff yielded adherence to PA practice in the long term. An innovative ERS linked to community resources and enhancing social support had shown to be sustainable in the long term. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT00714831; Results.

Project description:BackgroundA recent HTA review concluded that there was a need for RCTs of exercise referral schemes (ERS) for people with a medical diagnosis who might benefit from exercise. Overall, there is still uncertainty as to the cost-effectiveness of ERS. Evaluation of public health interventions places challenges on conventional health economics approaches. This economic evaluation of a national public health intervention addresses this issue of where ERS may be most cost effective through subgroup analysis, particularly important at a time of financial constraint.MethodThis economic analysis included 798 individuals aged 16 and over (55% of the randomised controlled trial (RCT) sample) with coronary heart disease risk factors and/or mild to moderate anxiety, depression or stress. Individuals were referred by health professionals in a primary care setting to a 16 week national exercise referral scheme (NERS) delivered by qualified exercise professionals in local leisure centres in Wales, UK. Health-related quality of life, health care services use, costs per participant in NERS, and willingness to pay for NERS were measured at 6 and 12 months.ResultsThe base case analysis assumed a participation cost of £385 per person per year, with a mean difference in QALYs between the two groups of 0.027. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £12,111 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated an 89% probability of NERS being cost-effective at a payer threshold of £30,000 per QALY. When participant payments of £1 and £2 per session were considered, the cost per QALY fell from £12,111 (base case) to £10,926 and £9,741, respectively. Participants with a mental health risk factor alone or in combination with a risk of chronic heart disease generated a lower ICER (£10,276) compared to participants at risk of chronic heart disease only (£13,060).ConclusionsResults of cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that NERS is cost saving in fully adherent participants. Though full adherence to NERS (62%) was higher for the economics sample than the main sample (44%), results still suggest that NERS can be cost-effective in Wales with respect to existing payer thresholds particularly for participants with mental health and CHD risk factors.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN47680448.

Dataset Information

The Newcastle exercise project: a randomised controlled trial of methods to promote physical activity in primary care.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Interventions

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The Newcastle exercise project: a randomised controlled trial of methods to promote physical activity in primary care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets