Cargando…
The feasibility and RE-AIM evaluation of the TAME health pilot study
BACKGROUND: Conducting 5 A’s counseling in clinic and utilizing technology-based resources are recommended to promote physical activity but little is known about how to implement such an intervention. This investigation aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptability, using the RE-AIM (Reach, E...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5556663/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28807041 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0560-5 |
_version_ | 1783257109486370816 |
---|---|
author | Lewis, Zakkoyya H Ottenbacher, Kenneth J Fisher, Steve R Jennings, Kristofer Brown, Arleen F Swartz, Maria C Martinez, Eloisa Lyons, Elizabeth J |
author_facet | Lewis, Zakkoyya H Ottenbacher, Kenneth J Fisher, Steve R Jennings, Kristofer Brown, Arleen F Swartz, Maria C Martinez, Eloisa Lyons, Elizabeth J |
author_sort | Lewis, Zakkoyya H |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Conducting 5 A’s counseling in clinic and utilizing technology-based resources are recommended to promote physical activity but little is known about how to implement such an intervention. This investigation aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptability, using the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework, of a pragmatic, primary care-based intervention that incorporated 5 A’s counseling and self-control through an activity monitor. METHODS: Primary care patients (n = 40) 55–74 years of age were recruited and randomized to receive a pedometer or an electronic activity monitor (EAM), Jawbone UP24, to monitor activity for 12 weeks. Participants were also invited to a focus group after completing the intervention. Stakeholders (n = 36) were recruited to provide feedback. RESULTS: The intervention recruitment rate was 24.7%. The attrition rate was 20% with a significantly higher rate for the pedometer group (p = 0.02). The EAM group increased their minutes of physical activity by 11.1 min/day while the pedometer maintained their activity (0.2 min/day), with no significant group difference. EAM participants liked using their monitor and would continue wearing it while the pedometer group was neutral to these statements (p < 0.05). Over the 12 weeks there were 490 comments and 1094 “likes” given to study peers in the corresponding application for the UP24 monitor. Some EAM participants enjoyed the social interaction feature while others were uncomfortable talking to strangers. Participants stated they would want counseling from a counselor and not their physician or a nurse. Other notable comments included incorporating multiple health behaviors, more in-person counseling with a counselor, and having a funding source for sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the study was well-received but the results raise a number of considerations. Practitioners, counselors, and researchers should consider the following before implementing a similar intervention: 1) utilize PA counselors, 2) target multiple health behaviors, 3) form a social support group, 4) identify a funding source for sustainability, and 5) be mindful of concerns with technology. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov- NCT02554435. Registered 24 August 2015. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12966-017-0560-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5556663 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55566632017-08-16 The feasibility and RE-AIM evaluation of the TAME health pilot study Lewis, Zakkoyya H Ottenbacher, Kenneth J Fisher, Steve R Jennings, Kristofer Brown, Arleen F Swartz, Maria C Martinez, Eloisa Lyons, Elizabeth J Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Research BACKGROUND: Conducting 5 A’s counseling in clinic and utilizing technology-based resources are recommended to promote physical activity but little is known about how to implement such an intervention. This investigation aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptability, using the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework, of a pragmatic, primary care-based intervention that incorporated 5 A’s counseling and self-control through an activity monitor. METHODS: Primary care patients (n = 40) 55–74 years of age were recruited and randomized to receive a pedometer or an electronic activity monitor (EAM), Jawbone UP24, to monitor activity for 12 weeks. Participants were also invited to a focus group after completing the intervention. Stakeholders (n = 36) were recruited to provide feedback. RESULTS: The intervention recruitment rate was 24.7%. The attrition rate was 20% with a significantly higher rate for the pedometer group (p = 0.02). The EAM group increased their minutes of physical activity by 11.1 min/day while the pedometer maintained their activity (0.2 min/day), with no significant group difference. EAM participants liked using their monitor and would continue wearing it while the pedometer group was neutral to these statements (p < 0.05). Over the 12 weeks there were 490 comments and 1094 “likes” given to study peers in the corresponding application for the UP24 monitor. Some EAM participants enjoyed the social interaction feature while others were uncomfortable talking to strangers. Participants stated they would want counseling from a counselor and not their physician or a nurse. Other notable comments included incorporating multiple health behaviors, more in-person counseling with a counselor, and having a funding source for sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the study was well-received but the results raise a number of considerations. Practitioners, counselors, and researchers should consider the following before implementing a similar intervention: 1) utilize PA counselors, 2) target multiple health behaviors, 3) form a social support group, 4) identify a funding source for sustainability, and 5) be mindful of concerns with technology. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov- NCT02554435. Registered 24 August 2015. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12966-017-0560-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-08-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5556663/ /pubmed/28807041 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0560-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Lewis, Zakkoyya H Ottenbacher, Kenneth J Fisher, Steve R Jennings, Kristofer Brown, Arleen F Swartz, Maria C Martinez, Eloisa Lyons, Elizabeth J The feasibility and RE-AIM evaluation of the TAME health pilot study |
title | The feasibility and RE-AIM evaluation of the TAME health pilot study |
title_full | The feasibility and RE-AIM evaluation of the TAME health pilot study |
title_fullStr | The feasibility and RE-AIM evaluation of the TAME health pilot study |
title_full_unstemmed | The feasibility and RE-AIM evaluation of the TAME health pilot study |
title_short | The feasibility and RE-AIM evaluation of the TAME health pilot study |
title_sort | feasibility and re-aim evaluation of the tame health pilot study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5556663/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28807041 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0560-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lewiszakkoyyah thefeasibilityandreaimevaluationofthetamehealthpilotstudy AT ottenbacherkennethj thefeasibilityandreaimevaluationofthetamehealthpilotstudy AT fisherstever thefeasibilityandreaimevaluationofthetamehealthpilotstudy AT jenningskristofer thefeasibilityandreaimevaluationofthetamehealthpilotstudy AT brownarleenf thefeasibilityandreaimevaluationofthetamehealthpilotstudy AT swartzmariac thefeasibilityandreaimevaluationofthetamehealthpilotstudy AT martinezeloisa thefeasibilityandreaimevaluationofthetamehealthpilotstudy AT lyonselizabethj thefeasibilityandreaimevaluationofthetamehealthpilotstudy AT lewiszakkoyyah feasibilityandreaimevaluationofthetamehealthpilotstudy AT ottenbacherkennethj feasibilityandreaimevaluationofthetamehealthpilotstudy AT fisherstever feasibilityandreaimevaluationofthetamehealthpilotstudy AT jenningskristofer feasibilityandreaimevaluationofthetamehealthpilotstudy AT brownarleenf feasibilityandreaimevaluationofthetamehealthpilotstudy AT swartzmariac feasibilityandreaimevaluationofthetamehealthpilotstudy AT martinezeloisa feasibilityandreaimevaluationofthetamehealthpilotstudy AT lyonselizabethj feasibilityandreaimevaluationofthetamehealthpilotstudy |