Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25886569›Full record

Trial reportTrials2015

Comparing the effectiveness of an enhanced MOtiVational intErviewing InTervention (MOVE IT) with usual care for reducing cardiovascular risk in high risk subjects: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Adam Bayley, Nicole de Zoysa, Derek G Cook, Peter H Whincup, Daniel Stahl, Katherine Twist, Katie Ridge, Paul McCrone, Janet Treasure, Mark Ashworth and 4 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

14 authors.

Adam BayleyDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, 10 Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK. adam.bayley@kcl.ac.uk.
Nicole de ZoysaDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, 10 Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK. ndezoysa@nhs.net.
Derek G CookPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 0RE, UK. dcook@sgul.ac.uk.
Peter H WhincupPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 0RE, UK. pwhincup@sgul.ac.uk.
Daniel StahlDepartment of Biostatistics, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK. daniel.r.stahl@kcl.ac.uk.
Katherine TwistDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, 10 Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK. katherine.twist@kcl.ac.uk.
Katie RidgeDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, 10 Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK. katie.ridge@kcl.ac.uk.
Paul McCroneDepartment of Health Services and Population Research, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK. paul.mccrone@kcl.ac.uk.
Janet TreasureSection of Eating Disorders, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK. janet.treasure@kcl.ac.uk.
Mark AshworthDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, 42 Weston Street, London, SE1 3QD, UK. markashworth@nhs.net.
Anne GreenoughDivision of Asthma, Allergy and Lung Biology, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, London, SE1 9RT, UK. anne.greenough@kcl.ac.uk.
Clare BlytheDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, 10 Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK. clare.blythe@kcl.ac.uk.
Kirsty WinkleyDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, 10 Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK. kirsty.winkley@nhs.net.
Khalida IsmailDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, 10 Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK. khalida.2.ismail@kcl.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of Health 10/62/03Medical Research Council G1000758
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInterventions targeting multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD), including poor diet and physical inactivity, are more effective than interventions targeting a single risk factor. A motivational interviewing (MI) intervention can provide modest dietary improvements and physical activity increases, while adding cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) skills may enhance the effects of MI. We designed a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine whether specific behaviour change techniques integrating MI and CBT result in favourable changes in weight and physical activity in those at high risk of CVD. A group and individual intervention will be compared to usual care. A group intervention offers potential benefits from social support and may be more cost effective. METHODS/

designIndividuals aged between 40 and 74 years in 11 South London Clinical Commissioning Groups who are at high risk of developing CVD (≥20%) in the next 10 years will be recruited. A sample of 1,704 participants will be randomised to receive the enhanced MI intervention, delivered by trained healthy lifestyle facilitators (HLFs), in group or individual formats, in 10 sessions (plus an introductory session) over one year, or usual care. Randomisation will be conducted by King's College London Clinical Trials Unit and researchers collecting outcome data will be blinded to treatment allocation. At 12-month and 24-month follow-up assessments, primary outcomes will be change in weight and physical activity (average steps per day). Secondary outcomes include changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and CVD risk score. Incidence of CVD events since baseline will be recorded. A process evaluation will be conducted to evaluate factors which impact on delivery, adherence and outcome. An economic evaluation will estimate relative cost-effectiveness of each type of intervention delivery. DISCUSSION: This RCT assesses the effectiveness of a healthy lifestyle intervention for people at high risk of CVD. Benefits of the study include the ethnic and socioeconomic diversity of the study population and that, via social support within the group setting and long-term follow-up period, the intervention offers the potential to support maintenance of a healthy lifestyle.

trial registrationThis trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (identifier: ISRCTN84864870, registered 15 May 2012).

Indexed as

Clinical ProtocolsMotivational InterviewingCardiovascular DiseasesExerciseHumansLife StyleOutcome Assessment, Health CareRisk FactorsSample Size

Identifiers

PMID25886569
PMCPMC4399238

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.