Trial reportPloS one2011
Two-year longitudinal analysis of a cluster randomized trial of physical activity promotion by general practitioners.
Trial report in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00131079 (Multi-center Evaluation of the Experimental Program for Physical Activity Promotion), which is not on this map. Cited by 27 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Multi-center Evaluation of the Experimental Program for Physical Activity Promotion (PEPAF), Carried Out by Family Physicians
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the long-term effects of physical activity interventions on objectively measured outcomes.BMC public health · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness of physical activity interventions delivered or prompted by health professionals in primary care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Pooled it
- Functionality of Physical Activity Referral Schemes (PARS): A Systematic Review.Frontiers in public health · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Exploring equity in primary-care-based physical activity interventions using PROGRESS-Plus: a systematic review and evidence synthesis.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2016Pooled it
- Face-to-face interventions for promoting physical activity.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Face-to-face versus remote and web 2.0 interventions for promoting physical activity.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Combined Before-and-After Workplace Intervention to Promote Healthy Lifestyles in Healthcare Workers (STI-VI Study): Short-Term Assessment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Trial
- Effectiveness of a web- and mobile phone-based intervention to promote physical activity and healthy eating in middle-aged males: randomized controlled trial of the ManUp study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2014Trial
- A community-wide campaign to promote physical activity in middle-aged and elderly people: a cluster randomized controlled trial.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2013Trial
- Benefits and risks of walking football for healthy ageing: a narrative review.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2025Review
- Utility of a slopes difference test for probing longitudinal multilevel aptitude treatment interactions: a simulation.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Movement Foundations. The perceived impact of a digital rehabilitation tool for returning to fitness following a period of illness, including COVID-19 infection: a qualitative study.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2023Article
- "My Patients Asked Me If I Owned a Fruit Stand in Town or Something." Barriers and Facilitators of Personalized Dietary Advice Implemented in a Primary Care Setting.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Validity of the Exercise Vital Sign Tool to Assess Physical Activity.American journal of preventive medicine · 2021Article
- Association between physical activity and the utilization of general practitioners in different age groups.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2019Article
- Telephone-based motivational interviewing versus usual care in primary care to increase physical activity: a randomized pilot study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2019Article
- Promoting physical activity through primary health care: the case of Catalonia.BMC public health · 2018Article
- A Pragmatic Application of the RE-AIM Framework for Evaluating the Implementation of Physical Activity as a Standard of Care in Health Systems.Preventing chronic disease · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe evaluate the effectiveness of a physical activity promotion programme carried out by general practitioners with inactive patients in routine care. METHODS AND
findingsPragmatic, cluster randomised clinical trial conducted in eleven public primary care centres in Spain. Fifty-six general practitioners (GPs) were randomly assigned to intervention (29) or standard care (27) groups. They assessed the physical activity level of a systematic sample of patients in routine practice and recruited 4317 individuals (2248 intervention and 2069 control) who did not meet minimum physical activity recommendations. Intervention GPs provided advice to all patients and a physical activity prescription to the subgroup attending an additional appointment (30%). A third of these prescriptions were opportunistically repeated. Control GPs provided standard care. Primary outcome measure was the change in self-reported physical activity from baseline to six, 12 and 24 months. Secondary outcomes included cardiorespiratory fitness and health-related quality of life. A total of 3691 patients (85%) were included in the longitudinal analysis and overall trends over the whole 24 month follow-up were significantly better in the intervention group (p<0.01). The greatest differences with the control group were observed at six months (adjusted difference 1.7 MET*hr/wk [95% CI, 0.8 to 2.6], 25 min/wk [95% CI, 11.3 to 38.4], and a 5.3% higher percentage of patients meeting minimum recommendations [95% CI: 2.1% to 8.8%] NNT = 19). These differences were not statistically significant at 12 and 24 months. No differences were found in secondary outcomes. A significant difference was maintained until 24 months in the proportion of patients achieving minimum recommendation in the subgroup that received a repeat prescription (adjusted difference 10.2%, 95% CI 1.5% to 19.4%).
conclusionsGeneral practitioners are effective at increasing the level of physical activity among their inactive patients during the initial six-months of an intervention but this effect wears off at 12 and 24 months. Only in the subgroup of patients receiving repeat prescriptions of physical activity is the effect maintained in long-term.
trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov NCT00131079.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.