Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22672576›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2012

Promoting walking among office employees - evaluation of a randomized controlled intervention with pedometers and e-mail messages.

Minna Aittasalo, Marjo Rinne, Matti Pasanen, Katriina Kukkonen-Harjula, Tommi Vasankari

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Workplace pedometer interventions for increasing physical activity.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Minna AittasaloThe UKK Institute for Health Promotion Research, P,O, Box 30, FI-33501, Tampere, Finland. minna.aittasalo@uta.fi
Marjo Rinne
Matti Pasanen
Katriina Kukkonen-Harjula
Tommi Vasankari
Urho Kaleva Kekkonen Institute · FIFinnish Institute for Health and Welfare · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of the study was to evaluate a 6-month intervention to promote office-employees' walking with pedometers and e-mail messages.

methodsParticipants were recruited by 10 occupational health care units (OHC) from 20 worksites with 2,230 employees. Voluntary and insufficiently physically active employees (N = 241) were randomized to a pedometer (STEP, N = 123) and a comparison group (COMP, N = 118). STEP included one group meeting, log-monitored pedometer-use and six e-mail messages from OHC. COMP participated in data collection. Reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance (RE-AIM) and costs were assessed with questionnaires (0, 2, 6, 12 months), process evaluation and interviews (12 months).

resultsThe intervention reached 29% (N = 646) of employees in terms of participation willingness. Logistic regression showed that the proportion of walkers tended to increase more in STEP than in COMP at 2 months in "walking for transportation" (Odds ratio 2.12, 95%CI 0.94 to 4.81) and at 6 months in "walking for leisure" (1.86, 95%CI 0.94 to 3.69). Linear model revealed a modest increase in the mean duration of "walking stairs" at 2 and 6 months (Geometric mean ratio 1.26, 95%CI 0.98 to 1.61; 1.27, 0.98 to 1.64). Adoption and implementation succeeded as intended. At 12 months, some traces of the intervention were sustained in 15 worksites, and a slightly higher number of walkers in STEP in comparison with COMP was observed in "walking stairs" (OR 2.24, 95%CI 0.94 to 5.31) and in "walking for leisure" (2.07, 95%CI 0.99 to 4.34). The direct costs of the intervention were 43 Euros per participant.

conclusionsThe findings indicate only modest impact on some indicators of walking. Future studies should invest in reaching the employees, minimizing attrition rate and using objective walking assessment. TRIAL REGISTERATION: ISRCTN79432107.

Indexed as

Electronic MailOccupational HealthAdultFemaleHealth PromotionHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, AmbulatoryProgram EvaluationWalkingWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID22672576
PMCPMC3444317
OpenAlexW2150015448

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.