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

Detailed Search Results

Promoting physical activity in rural Australian adults using an online intervention
Mitchell BL, Smith AE, Rowlands AV, Fraysse F, Parfitt G, Lewis NR, Dollman J
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 2019 Jan;22(1):70-75
clinical trial
3/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: No; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: No. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

OBJECTIVES: Rural Australian adults are consistently identified as insufficiently active, likely due to challenges implementing community-based physical activity programs in rural settings. On-line strategies to promote physical activity may be particularly effective in rural settings where isolation and scarcity of qualified support are potential barriers. The Rural Environments and Community Health (REACH) study evaluated the effectiveness of an online-delivered walking intervention among South Australian rural adults. DESIGN: Randomised controlled study design. METHODS: A twelve-week intervention, with six- and twelve-month follow-up, was conducted. Participants (n = 171; 50.6 +/- 12.5 years), recruited through flyers, local newspapers and radio, were randomised to comparison or intervention groups and received a pedometer. The intervention group received access to the REACH website and personalised step goals based on ratings of perceived exertion and daily affect. The comparison group received a paper diary and generic step goals. Outcome measures were accelerometry-assessed sedentary, light (LPA) and moderate-to-vigorous (MVPA) physical activity. Linear mixed models assessed changes over the intervention and follow-ups. RESULTS: Sedentary time decreased, and LPA and MVPA increased in both groups across the intervention (p < 0.05). The intervention group demonstrated a larger increase in LPA at six-month follow-up relative to comparison (p < 0.05). Both groups decreased sedentary time, overall and in bouts >= 30 min, between baseline and twelve-month follow-up (p < 0.05). From baseline to twelve-month follow-up, MVPA (total min and bouts >= 10 min) declined more in the comparison group than the intervention group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: While increased physical activity and decreased sedentary time were observed in both groups during the intervention period, maintenance was only observed for LPA at six-month follow-up in the intervention group. By twelve-month follow-up, post-intervention improvements had largely disappeared, suggesting that additional research is needed to identify ways to improve long-term adherence.

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