Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25689364›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2015

A primary care nurse-delivered walking intervention in older adults: PACE (pedometer accelerometer consultation evaluation)-Lift cluster randomised controlled trial.

Tess Harris, Sally M Kerry, Christina R Victor, Ulf Ekelund, Alison Woodcock, Steve Iliffe, Peter H Whincup, Carole Beighton, Michael Ussher, Elizabeth S Limb and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
10.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

92 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 188 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Promoting physical activity in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Tess HarrisPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Sally M KerryPragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Queen Mary's University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Christina R VictorCollege of Health and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, London, United Kingdom.
Ulf EkelundDepartment of Sport Medicine, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway; MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Alison WoodcockIndependent Psychology Research Consultant, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Steve IliffeResearch Department of Primary Care & Population Health, University College, London, United Kingdom.
Peter H WhincupPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Carole BeightonFaculty of Health Social Care and Education, Kingston University and St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Michael UssherPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Elizabeth S LimbPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Lee David10 Minute CBT, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom.
Debbie Brewin10 Minute CBT, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom.
Fredrika AdamsPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Annabelle RogersPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Derek G CookPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.
St George's, University of London · GBHertfordshire Community NHS Trust · GBBrunel University of London · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0909-20055Medical Research Council MC_U106179473Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBrisk walking in older people can increase step-counts and moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) in ≥10-minute bouts, as advised in World Health Organization guidelines. Previous interventions have reported step-count increases, but not change in objectively measured MVPA in older people. We assessed whether a primary care nurse-delivered complex intervention increased objectively measured step-counts and MVPA. METHODS AND

findingsA total of 988 60-75 year olds, able to increase walking and randomly selected from three UK family practices, were invited to participate in a parallel two-arm cluster randomised trial; randomisation was by household. Two-hundred-ninety-eight people from 250 households were randomised between 2011 and 2012; 150 individuals to the intervention group, 148 to the usual care control group. Intervention participants received four primary care nurse physical activity (PA) consultations over 3 months, incorporating behaviour change techniques, pedometer step-count and accelerometer PA intensity feedback, and an individual PA diary and plan. Assessors were not blinded to group status, but statistical analyses were conducted blind. The primary outcome was change in accelerometry assessed average daily step-counts between baseline and 3 months, with change at 12 months a secondary outcome. Other secondary outcomes were change from baseline in time in MVPA weekly in ≥10-minute bouts, accelerometer counts, and counts/minute at 3 months and 12 months. Other outcomes were adverse events, anthropometric measures, mood, and pain. Qualitative evaluations of intervention participants and practice nurses assessed the intervention's acceptability. At 3 months, eight participants had withdrawn or were lost to follow-up, 280 (94%) individuals provided primary outcome data. At 3 months changes in both average daily step-counts and weekly MVPA in ≥10-minute bouts were significantly higher in the intervention than control group: by 1,037 (95% CI 513-1,560) steps/day and 63 (95% CI 40-87) minutes/week, respectively. At 12 months corresponding differences were 609 (95% CI 104-1,115) steps/day and 40 (95% CI 17-63) minutes/week. Counts and counts/minute showed similar effects to steps and MVPA. Adverse events, anthropometry, mood, and pain were similar in the two groups. Participants and practice nurses found the intervention acceptable and enjoyable.

conclusionsThe PACE-Lift trial increased both step-counts and objectively measured MVPA in ≥10-minute bouts in 60-75 year olds at 3 and 12 months, with no effect on adverse events. To our knowledge, this is the first trial in this age group to demonstrate objective MVPA increases and highlights the value of individualised support incorporating objective PA assessment in a primary care setting.

trial registrationControlled-Trials.com ISRCTN42122561.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorPrimary Health CareReferral and ConsultationWalkingActigraphyAgedExerciseFemaleHealth PromotionHumansLost to Follow-UpMaleMiddle AgedMotor ActivityNursesPhysical Exertion

Identifiers

PMID25689364
PMCPMC4331517
OpenAlexW2148185811

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.