Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25879726›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2015

Protocol for Get Moving: a randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of three minimal contact interventions to promote fitness and physical activity in working adults.

Andrew J M Cooper, Katie Dearnley, Kate M Williams, Stephen J Sharp, Esther M F van Sluijs, Soren Brage, Stephen Sutton, Simon J Griffin

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Effectiveness of Minimal Contact Interventions: An RCT.American journal of preventive medicine · 2021
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew J M CooperMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, School of Clinical Medicine, Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK. andrew.cooper@mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk.
Katie DearnleyBehavioural Science Group, Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Institute of Public Health, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK. kd339@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Kate M WilliamsPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Institute of Public Health, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK. kmw36@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Stephen J SharpMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, School of Clinical Medicine, Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK. stephen.sharp@mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk.
Esther M F van SluijsMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, School of Clinical Medicine, Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK. esther.vansluijs@mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk.
Soren BrageMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, School of Clinical Medicine, Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK. soren.brage@mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk.
Stephen SuttonBehavioural Science Group, Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Institute of Public Health, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK. srs34@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Simon J GriffinMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, School of Clinical Medicine, Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK. simon.griffin@mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk.
University of Cambridge · GBMRC Epidemiology Unit · GB

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0110-20199Department of Health RP-PG-0606-1259Medical Research Council MC_U106179473Medical Research Council MC_U106179474Medical Research Council MC_UP_1001/2Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/3Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/4Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/5Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/7Medical Research Council MR/K023187/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWeb-based interventions for physical activity offer several advantages over face-to-face, print-and telephone-based interventions and are scalable and potentially cost-effective. Recent reviews of web-based interventions in adults show that they have positive but small effects on physical activity but identify a number of limitations including a reliance on self-report measures of outcome. This trial used an objective measure of physical activity to assess the effectiveness of three minimal contact interventions: 1) A multi-component web-based intervention incorporating objective monitoring and graphical feedback of physical activity; 2) A version of the first intervention that consisted only of objective monitoring plus web-based graphical feedback; and 3) Self-monitoring of physical activity using a paper diary. METHODS/

designGet Moving is an individually randomised controlled trial with allocation of 488 participants to one of three interventions or to a no-intervention control group. Participants are physically inactive working adults aged 18-65 years. They attended a baseline assessment session at which anthropometric, biological and questionnaire measures were taken and they completed a treadmill exercise test. They then wore a combined movement and heart rate monitor for six days and nights before being randomised to one of the four trial arms. The baseline measures were repeated at the follow-up assessment which took place approximately 12 weeks post-randomisation, conducted by staff blind to group allocation. Participants wore the movement and heart rate monitor for six days and nights before this. The co-primary outcomes are: physical activity energy expenditure measured using individually calibrated combined heart-rate and movement data; and cardiorespiratory fitness measured using a sub-maximal treadmill exercise test. DISCUSSION: Strengths of the trial include the use of an objective measure of physical activity, a measure of cardiorespiratory fitness, relatively large sample size and the use of robust methods of randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding to outcome assessment. Get Moving will contribute to the evidence base on minimal contact interventions for increasing physical activity. The interventions could be implemented in other settings such as primary care.

trial registrationISRCTN31844443. Registered 18 June 2010.

Indexed as

ExercisePhysical FitnessProgram EvaluationWorkAdolescentAdultAgedAnalysis of VarianceEnergy MetabolismFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHealth PromotionHumansInternetMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID25879726
PMCPMC4445269
OpenAlexW2017010334

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.