Evaluation of a very brief pedometer-based physical activity intervention delivered in NHS Health Checks in England: The VBI randomised controlled trial

Statistical analysis plan for a randomized controlled trial examining pedometer-based walking intervention in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the WATCHFUL trial

BACKGROUND

Physical activity is an effective management strategy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but patients' compliance is challenging. Walking is a suitable form of physical activity due to its convenience and sustainability, and it can potentially improve functional capacity in heart failure patients.

OBJECTIVES

The WATCHFUL trial aims to determine whether a pedometer-based walking intervention combined with face-to-face sessions and regular telephone contact improves functional capacity in heart failure patients.

METHODS

The WATCHFUL trial is a 6-month multicenter, parallel-group, randomized, controlled, superiority trial with a 6-month follow-up. A total of 202 patients were recruited for the trial. The primary analysis will evaluate the change in distance walked during the 6-min walk test from baseline to 6 months based on the intention-to-treat population; the analysis will be performed using a linear mixed-effect model adjusted for baseline values. Missing data will be imputed using multiple imputations, and the impact of missing data will be assessed using a sensitivity analysis. Adverse events are monitored and recorded throughout the trial period.

DISCUSSION

The trial has been designed as a pragmatic trial with a scalable intervention that could be easily translated into routine clinical care. The trial has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which slowed patients' recruitment and impacted their physical activity patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

The present publication provides details of the planned statistical analyses for the WATCHFUL trial to reduce the risks of reporting bias and erroneous data-driven results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT03041610, registered: 3/2/2017).

Tools to guide clinical discussions on physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and/or sleep for health promotion between primary care providers and adults accessing care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Health care providers have reported low knowledge, skill, and confidence for discussing movement behaviours (i.e., physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep), which may be improved with the use of tools to guide movement behaviour discussions in their practice. Past reviews have examined the psychometric properties, scoring, and behavioural outcomes of physical activity discussion tools. However, the features, perceptions, and effectiveness of discussion tools for physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and/or sleep have not yet been synthesized. The aim of this review was to report and appraise tools for movement behaviour discussions between health care providers and adults 18 + years in a primary care context within Canada or analogous countries.

METHODS

An integrated knowledge translation approach guided this review, whereby a working group of experts in medicine, knowledge translation, communications, kinesiology, and health promotion was engaged from research question formation to interpretation of findings. Three search approaches were used (i.e., peer-reviewed, grey literature, and forward searches) to identify studies reporting on perceptions and/or effectiveness of tools for physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and/or sleep. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

In total, 135 studies reporting on 61 tools (i.e., 51 on physical activity, one on sleep, and nine combining two movement behaviours) met inclusion criteria. Included tools served the purposes of assessment (n = 57), counselling (n = 50), prescription (n = 18), and/or referral (n = 12) of one or more movement behaviour. Most tools were used or intended for use by physicians, followed by nurses/nurse practitioners (n = 11), and adults accessing care (n = 10). Most tools were also used or intended to be used with adults without chronic conditions aged 18-64 years (n = 34), followed by adults with chronic conditions (n = 18). The quality of the 116 studies that evaluated tool effectiveness varied.

CONCLUSIONS

Many tools were positively perceived and were deemed effective at enhancing knowledge of, confidence for, ability in, and frequency of movement behaviour discussions. Future tools should guide discussions of all movement behaviours in an integrated manner in line with the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines. Practically, this review offers seven evidence-based recommendations that may guide future tool development and implementation.

mHealth intervention delivered in general practice to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour of patients with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes (ENERGISED): rationale and study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The growing number of patients with type 2 diabetes and prediabetes is a major public health concern. Physical activity is a cornerstone of diabetes management and may prevent its onset in prediabetes patients. Despite this, many patients with (pre)diabetes remain physically inactive. Primary care physicians are well-situated to deliver interventions to increase their patients' physical activity levels. However, effective and sustainable physical activity interventions for (pre)diabetes patients that can be translated into routine primary care are lacking.

METHODS

We describe the rationale and protocol for a 12-month pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of an mHealth intervention delivered in general practice to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour of patients with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes (ENERGISED). Twenty-one general practices will recruit 340 patients with (pre)diabetes during routine health check-ups. Patients allocated to the active control arm will receive a Fitbit activity tracker to self-monitor their daily steps and try to achieve the recommended step goal. Patients allocated to the intervention arm will additionally receive the mHealth intervention, including the delivery of several text messages per week, with some of them delivered just in time, based on data continuously collected by the Fitbit tracker. The trial consists of two phases, each lasting six months: the lead-in phase, when the mHealth intervention will be supported with human phone counselling, and the maintenance phase, when the intervention will be fully automated. The primary outcome, average ambulatory activity (steps/day) measured by a wrist-worn accelerometer, will be assessed at the end of the maintenance phase at 12 months.

DISCUSSION

The trial has several strengths, such as the choice of active control to isolate the net effect of the intervention beyond simple self-monitoring with an activity tracker, broad eligibility criteria allowing for the inclusion of patients without a smartphone, procedures to minimise selection bias, and involvement of a relatively large number of general practices. These design choices contribute to the trial's pragmatic character and ensure that the intervention, if effective, can be translated into routine primary care practice, allowing important public health benefits.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05351359, 28/04/2022).

Effectiveness of physical activity interventions delivered or prompted by health professionals in primary care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effectiveness of physical activity interventions delivered or prompted by primary care health professionals for increasing moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) in adult patients.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Databases (Medline and Medline in progress, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Sports Medicine and Education Index, ASSIA, PEDro, Bibliomap, Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index), trial registries (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, TRoPHI), and grey literature (OpenGrey) sources were searched (from inception to September 2020).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials of aerobic based physical activity interventions delivered or prompted by health professionals in primary care with a usual care control group or another control group that did not involve physical activity.

STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent reviewers screened the search results, extracted data from eligible trials and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (version 2). Inverse variance meta-analyses using random effects models examined the primary outcome of difference between the groups in MVPA (min/week) from baseline to final follow-up. The odds of meeting the guidelines for MVPA at follow-up were also analysed.

RESULTS

14 566 unique reports were identified and 46 randomised controlled trials with a range of follow-ups (3-60 months) were included in the meta-analysis (n=16 198 participants). Physical activity interventions delivered or prompted by health professionals in primary care increased MVPA by 14 min/week (95% confidence interval 4.2 to 24.6, P=0.006). Heterogeneity was substantial (I2=91%, P<0.001). Limiting analyses to trials that used a device to measure physical activity showed no significant group difference in MVPA (mean difference 4.1 min/week, 95% confidence interval -1.7 to 9.9, P=0.17; I2=56%, P=0.008). Trials that used self-report measures showed that intervention participants achieved 24 min/week more MVPA than controls (95% confidence interval 6.3 to 41.8, P=0.008; I2=72%, P<0.001). Additionally, interventions increased the odds of patients meeting guidelines for MVPA by 33% (95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.50, P<0.001; I2=25%, P=0.11) versus controls. 14 of 46 studies were at high risk of bias but sensitivity analyses excluding these studies did not alter the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Physical activity interventions delivered or prompted by health professionals in primary care appear effective at increasing participation in self-reported MVPA. Such interventions should be considered for routine implementation to increase levels of physical activity and improve health outcomes in the population.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021209484.

Effectiveness of physical activity monitors in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the effectiveness of physical activity monitor (PAM) based interventions among adults and explore reasons for the heterogeneity.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY SELECTION

The electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched on 4 June 2021. Eligible randomised controlled trials compared interventions in which adults received feedback from PAMs with control interventions in which no feedback was provided. No restrictions on type of outcome measurement, publication date, or language were applied.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to synthesise the results. The certainty of evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The three primary outcomes of interest were physical activity, moderate to vigorous physical activity, and sedentary time.

RESULTS

121 randomised controlled trials with 141 study comparisons, including 16 743 participants, were included. The PAM based interventions showed a moderate effect (standardised mean difference 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.55) on physical activity, equivalent to 1235 daily steps; a small effect (0.23, 0.16 to 0.30) on moderate to vigorous physical activity, equivalent to 48.5 weekly minutes; and a small insignificant effect (-0.12, -0.25 to 0.01) on sedentary time, equal to 9.9 daily minutes. All outcomes favoured the PAM interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The certainty of evidence was low for the effect of PAM based interventions on physical activity and moderate for moderate to vigorous physical activity and sedentary time. PAM based interventions are safe and effectively increase physical activity and moderate to vigorous physical activity. The effect on physical activity and moderate to vigorous physical activity is well established but might be overestimated owing to publication bias.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018102719.

Long-term Effectiveness of mHealth Physical Activity Interventions: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Mobile health (mHealth) interventions can increase physical activity (PA); however, their long-term impact is not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of this study is to understand the immediate and long-term effects of mHealth interventions on PA. The secondary aim is to explore potential effect moderators.

METHODS

We performed this study according to the Cochrane and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, and PsycINFO in July 2020. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials of mHealth interventions targeting PA as a primary outcome in adults. Eligible outcome measures were walking, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), total physical activity (TPA), and energy expenditure. Where reported, we extracted data for 3 time points (ie, end of intervention, follow-up ≤6 months, and follow-up >6 months). To explore effect moderators, we performed subgroup analyses by population, intervention design, and control group type. Results were summarized using random effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool.

RESULTS

Of the 2828 identified studies, 117 were included. These studies reported on 21,118 participants with a mean age of 52.03 (SD 14.14) years, of whom 58.99% (n=12,459) were female. mHealth interventions significantly increased PA across all the 4 outcome measures at the end of intervention (walking standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.46, 95% CI 0.36-0.55; P<.001; MVPA SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.21-0.35; P<.001; TPA SMD 0.34, 95% CI 0.20-0.47; P<.001; energy expenditure SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.13-0.75; P=.01). Only 33 studies reported short-term follow-up measurements, and 8 studies reported long-term follow-up measurements in addition to end-of-intervention results. In the short term, effects were sustained for walking (SMD 0.26, 95% CI 0.09-0.42; P=.002), MVPA (SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.05-0.35; P=.008), and TPA (SMD 0.53, 95% CI 0.13-0.93; P=.009). In the long term, effects were also sustained for walking (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.10-0.39; P=.001) and MVPA (SMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.11-0.27; P<.001). We found the study population to be an effect moderator, with higher effect scores in sick and at-risk populations. PA was increased both in scalable and nonscalable mHealth intervention designs and regardless of the control group type. The risk of bias was rated high in 80.3% (94/117) of the studies. Heterogeneity was significant, resulting in low to very low quality of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

mHealth interventions can foster small to moderate increases in PA. The effects are maintained long term; however, the effect size decreases over time. The results encourage using mHealth interventions in at-risk and sick populations and support the use of scalable mHealth intervention designs to affordably reach large populations. However, given the low evidence quality, further methodologically rigorous studies are warranted to evaluate the long-term effects.

NHS Health Check programme: a protocol for a realist review

INTRODUCTION

The NHS Health Check aims to identify individuals at increased risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) among the adult population in England. The Health Check includes calculation of CVD risk and discussion of pharmacological and lifestyle approaches to manage risk, including referral to lifestyle support services. The programme is commissioned by Local Authorities (LAs) and is delivered by a range of different providers in different settings. There is significant variation in activity, with uptake ranging from 25% to 85% in different areas, and clear evidence of variation in implementation and delivery practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We aim to understand how the NHS Health Check programme works in different settings, for different groups, so that we can recommend improvements to maximise intended outcomes. To do so, we will undertake a realist review and a survey of LA public health teams. Our review will follow Pawson's five iterative stages: (1) locate existing theories, (2) search for evidence, (3) article selection, (4) extract and organise data and (5) synthesise evidence and draw conclusions. Our review will include documents describing local implementation alongside published research studies. We will recruit a stakeholder group (including Public Health England, commissioners and providers of Health Checks, plus members of the public and patients) to advise us throughout. Our survey will be sent to all 152 LAs in England to gather detailed information on programme delivery (including COVID-19-related changes) and available referral services. This will enable us to map delivery across England and relate these data to programme outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this review. For the survey, we have received approval from the University of Kent Research Ethics Committee. Our findings will be used to develop recommendations on tailoring, implementation and design strategies to improve delivery of the NHS Health Check in different settings, for different groups.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020163822.

The effects of step-count monitoring interventions on physical activity: systematic review and meta-analysis of community-based randomised controlled trials in adults

Background

Step-count monitors (pedometers, body-worn trackers and smartphone applications) can increase walking, helping to tackle physical inactivity. We aimed to assess the effect of step-count monitors on physical activity (PA) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) amongst community-dwelling adults; including longer-term effects, differences between step-count monitors, and between intervention components.

Methods

Systematic literature searches in seven databases identified RCTs in healthy adults, or those at risk of disease, published between January 2000–April 2020. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcome was mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) in steps at follow-up between treatment and control groups. Our preferred outcome measure was from studies with follow-up steps adjusted for baseline steps (change studies); but we also included studies reporting follow-up differences only (end-point studies). Multivariate-meta-analysis used random-effect estimates at different time-points for change studies only. Meta-regression compared effects of different step-count monitors and intervention components amongst all studies at ≤4 months.

Results

Of 12,491 records identified, 70 RCTs (at generally low risk of bias) were included, with 57 trials (16,355 participants) included in meta-analyses: 32 provided change from baseline data; 25 provided end-point only. Multivariate meta-analysis of the 32 change studies demonstrated step-counts favoured intervention groups: MD of 1126 steps/day 95%CI [787, 1466] at ≤4 months, 1050 steps/day [602, 1498] at 6 months, 464 steps/day [301, 626] at 1 year, 121 steps/day [− 64, 306] at 2 years and 434 steps/day [191, 676] at 3–4 years. Meta-regression of the 57 trials at ≤4 months demonstrated in mutually-adjusted analyses that: end-point were similar to change studies (+ 257 steps/day [− 417, 931]); body-worn trackers/smartphone applications were less effective than pedometers (− 834 steps/day [− 1542, − 126]); and interventions providing additional counselling/incentives were not better than those without (− 812 steps/day [− 1503, − 122]).

Conclusions

Step-count monitoring leads to short and long-term step-count increases, with no evidence that either body-worn trackers/smartphone applications, or additional counselling/incentives offer further benefit over simpler pedometer-based interventions. Simple step-count monitoring interventions should be prioritised to address the public health physical inactivity challenge.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO number CRD42017075810.