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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lewis, Zakkoyya H, Ottenbacher, Kenneth J, Fisher, Steve R, Jennings, Kristofer, Brown, Arleen F, Swartz, Maria C, Martinez, Eloisa, Lyons, Elizabeth J
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