Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22694796›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2012

Health promotion intervention in mental health care: design and baseline findings of a cluster preference randomized controlled trial.

Nick Verhaeghe, Jan De Maeseneer, Lea Maes, Cornelis Van Heeringen, Veerle Bogaert, Els Clays, Dirk De Bacquer, Lieven Annemans

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
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 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nick VerhaegheDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185, B-9000, Ghent, Belgium. Nick.Verhaeghe@UGent.be
Jan De Maeseneer
Lea Maes
Cornelis Van Heeringen
Veerle Bogaert
Els Clays
Dirk De Bacquer
Lieven Annemans
Ghent University · BEGhent University Hospital · BEVrije Universiteit Brussel · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGrowing attention is given to the effects of health promotion programs targeting physical activity and healthy eating in individuals with mental disorders. The design of evaluation studies of public health interventions poses several problems and the current literature appears to provide only limited evidence on the effectiveness of such programs. The aim of the study is to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a health promotion intervention targeting physical activity and healthy eating in individuals with mental disorders living in sheltered housing. In this paper, the design of the study and baseline findings are described. METHODS/

designThe design consists of a cluster preference randomized controlled trial. All sheltered housing organisations in the Flanders region (Belgium) were asked if they were interested to participate in the study and if they were having a preference to serve as intervention or control group. Those without a preference were randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. Individuals in the intervention group receive a 10-week health promotion intervention above their treatment as usual. Outcome assessments occur at baseline, at 10 and at 36 weeks. The primary outcomes include body weight, Body Mass Index, waist circumference, and fat mass. Secondary outcomes consist of physical activity levels, eating habits, health-related quality of life and psychiatric symptom severity. Cost-effectiveness of the intervention will be examined by calculating the Cost-Effectiveness ratio and through economic modeling.Twenty-five sheltered housing organisations agreed to participate. On the individual level 324 patients were willing to participate, including 225 individuals in the intervention group and 99 individuals in the control group. At baseline, no statistical significant differences between the two groups were found for the primary outcome variables. DISCUSSION: This is the first trial evaluating both the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a health promotion intervention targeting physical activity and healthy eating in mental health care using a cluster preference randomized controlled design. The baseline characteristics already demonstrate the unhealthy condition of the study population.

trial registrationThis study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov - NCT 01336946.

Indexed as

Comparative Effectiveness ResearchExerciseOutcome Assessment, Health CareResidence CharacteristicsAdolescentAgedBelgiumBody Mass IndexCluster AnalysisCost-Benefit AnalysisFeeding BehaviorFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHealth PromotionHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID22694796
PMCPMC3408350
OpenAlexW1993963128

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.