Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Testing a workplace physical activity intervention: a cluster randomized controlled trial
McEachan RRC, Lawton RJ, Jackson C, Conner M, Meads DM, West RM
The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2011 Apr 11;8(29):Epub
clinical trial
5/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: No; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

BACKGROUND: Increased physical activity levels benefit both an individuals' health and productivity at work. The purpose of the current study was to explore the impact and cost-effectiveness of a workplace physical activity intervention designed to increase physical activity levels. METHODS: A total of 1,260 participants from 44 UK worksites (based within 5 organizations) were recruited to a cluster randomized controlled trial with worksites randomly allocated to an intervention or control condition. Measurement of physical activity and other variables occurred at baseline, and at 0 months, 3 months and 9 months post-intervention. Health outcomes were measured during a 30 minute health check conducted in worksites at baseline and 9 months post intervention. The intervention consisted of a 3 month tool-kit of activities targeting components of the theory of planned behavior, delivered in-house by nominated facilitators. Self-reported physical activity (measured using the IPAQ short-form) and health outcomes were assessed. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Multilevel modeling found no significant effect of the intervention on MET minutes of activity (from the IPAQ) at any of the follow-up time points controlling for baseline activity. However, the intervention did significantly reduce systolic blood pressure (B = -1.79 mm/Hg) and resting heart rate (B = -2.08 beats) and significantly increased body mass index (B = 0.18 units) compared to control. The intervention was found not to be cost-effective, however the substantial variability round this estimate suggested that further research is warranted. CONCLUSIONS: The current study found mixed support for this worksite physical activity intervention. The paper discusses some of the tensions involved in conducting rigorous evaluations of large-scale randomized controlled trials in real-world settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN08807396.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help