Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Investigating the effect of a 3-month workplace-based pedometer-driven walking programme on health-related quality of life in meat processing workers: a feasibility study within a randomized controlled trial |
Mansi S, Milosavljevic S, Tumilty S, Hendrick P, Higgs C, Baxter DG |
BMC Public Health 2015 Apr 22;15(410):Epub |
clinical trial |
8/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; 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: In New Zealand, meat processing populations face many health problems as a result of the nature of work in meat processing industries. The primary aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of using a pedometer-based intervention to increase physical activity and improve health-related outcomes in a population of meat processing workers. METHODS: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted. A convenience sample of meat workers (n = 58; mean age 41.0 years; range 18 to 65) participated in the trial. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups. Intervention participants (n = 29) utilized a pedometer to self monitor their activity, whilst undertaking a brief intervention, and educational material. Control participants (n = 29) received educational material only. The primary outcomes of ambulatory activity, and health-related quality of life, were evaluated at baseline, immediately following the 12-week intervention and three months post-intervention. RESULTS: Fifty three participants completed the program (91.3% adherence). Adherence with the intervention group was high, 93% (n = 27/29), and this group increased their mean daily step count from 5,993 to 9,792 steps per day, while the control group steps changed from 5,788 to 6,551 steps per day from baseline. This increase in step counts remained significant within the intervention group p < 0.005; at three months post-intervention representing a 59% increase over baseline scores. There were significant group changes with large effect sizes for step count change (d = 1.94) and self-reported physical activity (p < 0.005; d = 2.59) at 12 weeks intervention. Further, results showed non-significant between-group differences in physical component (PCS) and mental component (MCS) scores (PCS p = 0.44; MGD 0.99, 95% CI -1.6 to 3.6; ES 0.14, and MCS p = 0.90, MGD 0.15; 95% CI -2.3 to 2.6, ES 0.022) at 12 weeks intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This research provides important information for a larger (RCT) in the future: results demonstrated that a pedometer-driven walking intervention in combination with goal setting, and self-monitoring supported by weekly e-mails are feasible and potentially effective in increasing step count within the workplace setting over the short term. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12613000087752.
|