Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25895747›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2015

Investigating the effect of a 3-month workplace-based pedometer-driven walking programme on health-related quality of life in meat processing workers: a feasibility study within a randomized controlled trial.

Suliman Mansi, Stephan Milosavljevic, Steve Tumilty, Paul Hendrick, Chris Higgs, David G Baxter

Abstract 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 30 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
–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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Workplace pedometer interventions for increasing physical activity.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Suliman MansiSchool of Physiotherapy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. almsu521@student.otago.ac.nz.
Stephan MilosavljevicSchool of Physiotherapy, University of Saskatchewan, 1121 College Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 0W3, Canada. stephan.milosavljevic@usask.ca.
Steve TumiltySchool of Physiotherapy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. steve.tumilty@otago.ac.nz.
Paul HendrickDivision of Physiotherapy Education, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG5, UK. paul.hendrick@nottingham.ac.uk.
Chris HiggsSchool of Physiotherapy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. chris.higgs@otago.ac.nz.
David G BaxterSchool of Physiotherapy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. david.baxter@otago.ac.nz.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn New Zealand, meat processing populations face many health problems as a result of the nature of work in meat processing industries. The primary aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of using a pedometer-based intervention to increase physical activity and improve health-related outcomes in a population of meat processing workers.

methodsA single-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted. A convenience sample of meat workers (n = 58; mean age 41.0 years; range: 18-65) participated in the trial. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups. Intervention participants (n = 29) utilized a pedometer to self monitor their activity, whilst undertaking a brief intervention, and educational material. Control participants (n = 29) received educational material only. The primary outcomes of ambulatory activity, and health-related quality of life, were evaluated at baseline, immediately following the 12-week intervention and three months post-intervention.

resultsFifty three participants completed the program (91.3% adherence). Adherence with the intervention group was high, 93% (n = 27/29), and this group increased their mean daily step count from 5993 to 9792 steps per day, while the control group steps changed from 5788 to 6551 steps per day from baseline. This increase in step counts remained significant within the intervention group p < 0.005; at three months post-intervention representing a 59% increase over baseline scores. There were significant group changes with large effect sizes for step count change (d = 1.94) and self-reported physical activity (p < 0.005; d = 2.59) at 12 weeks intervention. Further, results showed non-significant between-group differences in physical component (PCS) and mental component (MCS) scores (PCS: p = 0.44; MGD = 0.99, 95% CI, -1.6 to 3.6; ES = 0.14, and MCS: p = 0.90, MGD = 0.15; 95% CI, -2.3 to 2.6, ES = 0.022) at 12 weeks intervention.

conclusionsThis research provides important information for a larger (RCT) in the future: results demonstrated that a pedometer-driven walking intervention in combination with goal setting, and self-monitoring supported by weekly e-mails are feasible and potentially effective in increasing step count within the workplace setting over the short term. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12613000087752.

Indexed as

Meat-Packing IndustryActigraphyAdultAgedExercise TherapyFemaleFood HandlingHealth PromotionHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, AmbulatoryNew ZealandOccupational DiseasesSingle-Blind MethodWalking

Identifiers

PMID25895747
PMCPMC4431031

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.