Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27039181›Full record

ArticleTrials2016

Exploring non-participation in primary care physical activity interventions: PACE-UP trial interview findings.

Rebecca Normansell, Rebecca Holmes, Christina Victor, Derek G Cook, Sally Kerry, Steve Iliffe, Michael Ussher, Julia Fox-Rushby, Peter Whincup, Tess Harris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

10 authors.

Rebecca NormansellPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 ORE, UK. rnormans@sgul.ac.uk.
Rebecca HolmesPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 ORE, UK.
Christina VictorGerontology and Health Services Research Unit, Brunel University, London, UB8 3PH, UK.
Derek G CookPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 ORE, UK.
Sally KerryPragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, E1 2AT, UK.
Steve IliffeResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College, London, NW3 2PF, UK.
Michael UssherPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 ORE, UK.
Julia Fox-RushbyHealth Economics Research Group, Brunel University, London, UB8 3PH, UK.
Peter WhincupPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 ORE, UK.
Tess HarrisPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 ORE, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 10/32/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTrials in primary care to increase physical activity (PA) typically experience poor recruitment rates and may not recruit those with lower PA levels and who are most in need of the intervention. Despite the well-publicised benefits of physical activity, the majority of adults in the UK remain inactive and, therefore, at greater risk of many health problems. Our aim was to investigate the reasons for non-participation in the PACE-UP trial, which is a primary care pedometer-based walking intervention. This is important for successful recruitment and retention in future PA trials and programmes.

methodWe conducted semi-structured audio-recorded telephone interviews with 30 participants, aged 45-75 years, purposively sampled from those declining participation in the PACE-UP trial. Recruitment continued until data saturation and a demographically balanced sample was achieved. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded and subjected to thematic analysis.

resultsInterviewees supported walking as suitable exercise for most people in this age group, recognised the importance of this type of research and general practice as an appropriate setting. Key reasons for declining were: the perception of being already 'too active'; existing medical conditions; work; travel and other commitments. Less frequently cited reasons included reluctance to be randomised, the intervention's duration, wearing a pedometer, perceived inappropriateness of trial literature and a preference for a different kind of PA or for a group activity.

conclusionsWhilst most interviewees perceived themselves to be sufficiently active, an important minority did not participate due to existing medical conditions and other commitments. Recruitment to future PA trials might be improved by tailoring activity to compensate for medical problems, and adapting PA interventions to fit around work and travel commitments. Ensuring that patient-targeted literature is succinct and inclusive and that equipment is user-friendly are also important. Primary care is seen as an appropriate setting for PA trials and programmes.

trial registrationISRCTN98538934 .

Indexed as

ExerciseExercise TherapyPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient SelectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicActigraphyAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPerceptionPrimary Health CareExerciseNon-participationPrimary Health CareQualitativeRandomised controlled trialWalking

Identifiers

PMID27039181
PMCPMC4818945

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.