Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25304191›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2014

WALK 2.0: examining the effectiveness of Web 2.0 features to increase physical activity in a 'real world' setting: an ecological trial.

Cristina M Caperchione, Gregory S Kolt, Trevor N Savage, Richard R Rosenkranz, Anthony J Maeder, Corneel Vandelanotte, Mitch J Duncan, Anetta Van Itallie, Rhys Tague, W Kerry Mummery

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

Trial report in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Cristina M CaperchioneSchool of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.
Gregory S KoltSchool of Science and Health, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Trevor N SavageSchool of Science and Health, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Richard R RosenkranzSchool of Science and Health, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Anthony J MaederSchool of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Corneel VandelanotteCentre for Physical Activity Studies, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia.
Mitch J DuncanSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Anetta Van ItallieCentre for Physical Activity Studies, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia.
Rhys TagueSchool of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
W Kerry MummeryFaculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Western Sydney University · AUCentral Queensland University · AUKansas State University · USUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionLow levels of health-enhancing physical activity require novel approaches that have the potential to reach broad populations. Web-based interventions are a popular approach for behaviour change given their wide reach and accessibility. However, challenges with participant engagement and retention reduce the long-term maintenance of behaviour change. Web 2.0 features present a new and innovative online environment supporting greater interactivity, with the potential to increase engagement and retention. In order to understand the applicability of these innovative interventions for the broader population, 'real-world' interventions implemented under 'everyday conditions' are required. The aim of this study is to investigate the difference in physical activity behaviour between individuals using a traditional Web 1.0 website with those using a novel Web 2.0 website. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this study we will aim to recruit 2894 participants. Participants will be recruited from individuals who register with a pre-existing health promotion website that currently provides Web 1.0 features (http://www.10000steps.org.au). Eligible participants who provide informed consent will be randomly assigned to one of the two trial conditions: the pre-existing 10 000 Steps website (with Web 1.0 features) or the newly developed WALK 2.0 website (with Web 2.0 features). Primary and secondary outcome measures will be assessed by self-report at baseline, 3 months and 12 months, and include: physical activity behaviour, height and weight, Internet self-efficacy, website usability, website usage and quality of life. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received ethics approval from the University of Western Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (Reference Number H8767) and has been funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Reference Number 589903). Study findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications, academic conferences and local community-based presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number: ACTRN12611000253909, WHO Universal Trial Number: U111-1119-1755.

Indexed as

ExerciseInternetUser-Computer InterfaceAustraliaBehavior TherapyBody HeightBody WeightHealth PromotionHumansMotor ActivityQuality of LifeSelf EfficacyPREVENTIVE MEDICINEPUBLIC HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID25304191
PMCPMC4194800
OpenAlexW2139485418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.