Cargando…
Comparing physical activity prescription with verbal advice for general practice patients with cardiovascular risk factors: results from the PEPPER randomised controlled trial
BACKGROUND: Regular physical activity improves health and quality of life for people with cardiovascular risk factors. However, few studies have demonstrated the applicability of strategies in health care to promote physical activity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if a written physical activity prescriptio...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10360325/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37475036 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16302-6 |
_version_ | 1785076080261988352 |
---|---|
author | Bellanger, William Peurois, Matthieu Connan, Laurent Navasiolava, Nastassia Missud, David Py, Thibaut Bègue, Cyril |
author_facet | Bellanger, William Peurois, Matthieu Connan, Laurent Navasiolava, Nastassia Missud, David Py, Thibaut Bègue, Cyril |
author_sort | Bellanger, William |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Regular physical activity improves health and quality of life for people with cardiovascular risk factors. However, few studies have demonstrated the applicability of strategies in health care to promote physical activity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if a written physical activity prescription combined with pedometer increases physical activity over one year compared with verbal advice in patients with cardiovascular disease risk in primary care. METHODS: The randomised-controlled, interventional, 12-month PEPPER study recruited patients aged 35 to 74 years, having quarterly followed-ups for hypertension, dyslipidaemia, or diabetes, and judged insufficiently active. Seventeen practices randomised patients into either the experimental group, who received a written, personalised prescription for daily step numbers, pedometer and logbook, or control group, who received verbal advice to do at least 15 min of rapid walking or equivalent daily. The primary outcome was the change in total weekly energy expenditure measured using an accelerometer at 3 months. The secondary outcomes were changes in step count, physical activity levels, quality of life, perceived obstacles to physical activity, and biomedical indicators at 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-one participants were randomised. Although, weekly energy expenditure did not differ between the prescription and verbal instruction group, the estimated time spent doing moderate-intensity activity was significantly higher in the prescription group than the verbal group by an average of four minutes/week (p = 0.018)(95% CI [0.7 – 7.4]) reaching 48 min after 12 months (95% CI: 8 – 89). Similarly, this was associated with a clinically, higher average step number of 5256 steps/week increase over a year (95% CI: 660 – 9852). Among the most sedentary subgroup, walking less than 5000 steps/day at baseline, an 8868 steps/week (95% CI [2988 – 14700]) increase was observed in the prescription group. CONCLUSION: Prescribing physical activity did not significantly modify total weekly energy expenditure, but slightly increased moderate-intensity activity duration and step counts, particularly among the most sedentary participants. Prescribing personalised physical activity goals encourages sedentary patients to engage in physical activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PEPPER trial is registered in the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry under number NCT02317003 (15/12/2014). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-023-16302-6. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10360325 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103603252023-07-22 Comparing physical activity prescription with verbal advice for general practice patients with cardiovascular risk factors: results from the PEPPER randomised controlled trial Bellanger, William Peurois, Matthieu Connan, Laurent Navasiolava, Nastassia Missud, David Py, Thibaut Bègue, Cyril BMC Public Health Research BACKGROUND: Regular physical activity improves health and quality of life for people with cardiovascular risk factors. However, few studies have demonstrated the applicability of strategies in health care to promote physical activity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if a written physical activity prescription combined with pedometer increases physical activity over one year compared with verbal advice in patients with cardiovascular disease risk in primary care. METHODS: The randomised-controlled, interventional, 12-month PEPPER study recruited patients aged 35 to 74 years, having quarterly followed-ups for hypertension, dyslipidaemia, or diabetes, and judged insufficiently active. Seventeen practices randomised patients into either the experimental group, who received a written, personalised prescription for daily step numbers, pedometer and logbook, or control group, who received verbal advice to do at least 15 min of rapid walking or equivalent daily. The primary outcome was the change in total weekly energy expenditure measured using an accelerometer at 3 months. The secondary outcomes were changes in step count, physical activity levels, quality of life, perceived obstacles to physical activity, and biomedical indicators at 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-one participants were randomised. Although, weekly energy expenditure did not differ between the prescription and verbal instruction group, the estimated time spent doing moderate-intensity activity was significantly higher in the prescription group than the verbal group by an average of four minutes/week (p = 0.018)(95% CI [0.7 – 7.4]) reaching 48 min after 12 months (95% CI: 8 – 89). Similarly, this was associated with a clinically, higher average step number of 5256 steps/week increase over a year (95% CI: 660 – 9852). Among the most sedentary subgroup, walking less than 5000 steps/day at baseline, an 8868 steps/week (95% CI [2988 – 14700]) increase was observed in the prescription group. CONCLUSION: Prescribing physical activity did not significantly modify total weekly energy expenditure, but slightly increased moderate-intensity activity duration and step counts, particularly among the most sedentary participants. Prescribing personalised physical activity goals encourages sedentary patients to engage in physical activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PEPPER trial is registered in the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry under number NCT02317003 (15/12/2014). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-023-16302-6. BioMed Central 2023-07-20 /pmc/articles/PMC10360325/ /pubmed/37475036 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16302-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Bellanger, William Peurois, Matthieu Connan, Laurent Navasiolava, Nastassia Missud, David Py, Thibaut Bègue, Cyril Comparing physical activity prescription with verbal advice for general practice patients with cardiovascular risk factors: results from the PEPPER randomised controlled trial |
title | Comparing physical activity prescription with verbal advice for general practice patients with cardiovascular risk factors: results from the PEPPER randomised controlled trial |
title_full | Comparing physical activity prescription with verbal advice for general practice patients with cardiovascular risk factors: results from the PEPPER randomised controlled trial |
title_fullStr | Comparing physical activity prescription with verbal advice for general practice patients with cardiovascular risk factors: results from the PEPPER randomised controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparing physical activity prescription with verbal advice for general practice patients with cardiovascular risk factors: results from the PEPPER randomised controlled trial |
title_short | Comparing physical activity prescription with verbal advice for general practice patients with cardiovascular risk factors: results from the PEPPER randomised controlled trial |
title_sort | comparing physical activity prescription with verbal advice for general practice patients with cardiovascular risk factors: results from the pepper randomised controlled trial |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10360325/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37475036 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16302-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bellangerwilliam comparingphysicalactivityprescriptionwithverbaladviceforgeneralpracticepatientswithcardiovascularriskfactorsresultsfromthepepperrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT peuroismatthieu comparingphysicalactivityprescriptionwithverbaladviceforgeneralpracticepatientswithcardiovascularriskfactorsresultsfromthepepperrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT connanlaurent comparingphysicalactivityprescriptionwithverbaladviceforgeneralpracticepatientswithcardiovascularriskfactorsresultsfromthepepperrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT navasiolavanastassia comparingphysicalactivityprescriptionwithverbaladviceforgeneralpracticepatientswithcardiovascularriskfactorsresultsfromthepepperrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT missuddavid comparingphysicalactivityprescriptionwithverbaladviceforgeneralpracticepatientswithcardiovascularriskfactorsresultsfromthepepperrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT pythibaut comparingphysicalactivityprescriptionwithverbaladviceforgeneralpracticepatientswithcardiovascularriskfactorsresultsfromthepepperrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT beguecyril comparingphysicalactivityprescriptionwithverbaladviceforgeneralpracticepatientswithcardiovascularriskfactorsresultsfromthepepperrandomisedcontrolledtrial |