Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21479243›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2011

Two-year longitudinal analysis of a cluster randomized trial of physical activity promotion by general practitioners.

Gonzalo Grandes, Alvaro Sanchez, Imanol Montoya, Ricardo Ortega Sanchez-Pinilla, Jesús Torcal, PEPAF Group

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT00131079 phase3completednot on this map

Multi-center Evaluation of the Experimental Program for Physical Activity Promotion (PEPAF), Carried Out by Family Physicians

TypeinterventionalSponsorBasque Health ServiceRan2003 to 2006Enrolled4,317ConditionsExercise, Physical Fitness, Quality of LifeArmsExperimental Programme for Physical Activity Promotion, Control
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Face-to-face interventions for promoting physical activity.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Validity of the Exercise Vital Sign Tool to Assess Physical Activity.American journal of preventive medicine · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Gonzalo GrandesPrimary Care Research Unit of Bizkaia, Basque Healthcare Service, Bilbao, Spain. gonzalo.grandes@osakidetza.net
Alvaro Sanchez
Imanol Montoya
Ricardo Ortega Sanchez-Pinilla
Jesús Torcal
PEPAF Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

General PractitionersRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCluster AnalysisHumansLongitudinal StudiesMiddle AgedMotor ActivityPrimary Health CareYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID21479243
PMCPMC3066231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.