Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28045890›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2017

Effect of a Primary Care Walking Intervention with and without Nurse Support on Physical Activity Levels in 45- to 75-Year-Olds: The Pedometer And Consultation Evaluation (PACE-UP) Cluster Randomised Clinical Trial.

Tess Harris, Sally M Kerry, Elizabeth S Limb, Christina R Victor, Steve Iliffe, Michael Ussher, Peter H Whincup, Ulf Ekelund, Julia Fox-Rushby, Cheryl Furness and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 135 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. 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
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Effectiveness of Minimal Contact Interventions: An RCT.American journal of preventive medicine · 2021
    Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial
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

18 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.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7181-9107
Elizabeth S LimbPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0830-7376
Christina R VictorGerontology and Health Services Research Unit, Brunel University, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4213-3974
Steve IliffeResearch Department of Primary Care & Population Health, University College, London, United Kingdom.
Michael UssherPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0995-7955
Peter H WhincupPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Ulf EkelundDepartment of Sport Medicine, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway.
Julia Fox-RushbyHealth Economics Research Group, Brunel, University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0748-0871
Cheryl FurnessPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Nana AnokyeHealth Economics Research Group, Brunel, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Judith IbisonPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Steve DeWildePopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Lee David10 Minute CBT, Devonshire Business Centre, Letchworth Garden City, United Kingdom.
Emma HowardPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4947-4595
Rebecca DalePopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Jaime SmithPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5510-8831
Derek G CookPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.
St George's, University of London · GBUniversity of London · GBBrunel University of London · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation RG/08/013/25942British Heart Foundation RG/13/16/30528Department of Health 10/32/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPedometers can increase walking and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) levels, but their effectiveness with or without support has not been rigorously evaluated. We assessed the effectiveness of a pedometer-based walking intervention in predominantly inactive adults, delivered by post or through primary care nurse-supported physical activity (PA) consultations. METHODS AND

findingsA parallel three-arm cluster randomised trial was randomised by household, with 12-mo follow-up, in seven London, United Kingdom, primary care practices. Eleven thousand fifteen randomly selected patients aged 45-75 y without PA contraindications were invited. Five hundred forty-eight self-reporting achieving PA guidelines were excluded. One thousand twenty-three people from 922 households were randomised between 2012-2013 to one of the following groups: usual care (n = 338); postal pedometer intervention (n = 339); and nurse-supported pedometer intervention (n = 346). Of these, 956 participants (93%) provided outcome data (usual care n = 323, postal n = 312, nurse-supported n = 321). Both intervention groups received pedometers, 12-wk walking programmes, and PA diaries. The nurse group was offered three PA consultations. Primary and main secondary outcomes were changes from baseline to 12 mo in average daily step-counts and time in MVPA (in ≥10-min bouts), respectively, measured objectively by accelerometry. Only statisticians were masked to group. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Average baseline daily step-count was 7,479 (standard deviation [s.d.] 2,671), and average time in MVPA bouts was 94 (s.d. 102) min/wk. At 12 mo, mean steps/d, with s.d. in parentheses, were as follows: control 7,246 (2,671); postal 8,010 (2,922); and nurse support 8,131 (3,228). PA increased in both intervention groups compared with the control group; additional steps/d were 642 for postal (95% CI 329-955) and 677 for nurse support (95% CI 365-989); additional MVPA in bouts (min/wk) were 33 for postal (95% CI 17-49) and 35 for nurse support (95% CI 19-51). There were no significant differences between the two interventions at 12 mo. The 10% (1,023/10,467) recruitment rate was a study limitation.

conclusionsA primary care pedometer-based walking intervention in predominantly inactive 45- to 75-y-olds increased step-counts by about one-tenth and time in MVPA in bouts by about one-third. Nurse and postal delivery achieved similar 12-mo PA outcomes. A primary care pedometer intervention delivered by post or with minimal support could help address the public health physical inactivity challenge. CLINICAL

trial registrationisrctn.com ISRCTN98538934.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareWalkingActigraphyAgedFemaleHealth PromotionHumansLondonMaleMiddle AgedNurses

Identifiers

PMID28045890
PMCPMC5207642
OpenAlexW2569714033

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.