ArticleLondon journal of primary care2016
What do patients really know? An evaluation of patients' physical activity guideline knowledge within general practice.
Article in London journal of primary care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Physical activity and risk of adverse events in atrial fibrillation: evidence from European and Asian cohorts.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysical inactivity is well recognised as one of the leading causes of preventable death. However, little is known about the general public's knowledge surrounding national physical activity guidelines, particularly within general practice (GP).
settingTwo GPs (York and Maidenhead, UK). QUESTION: Are GP patients aware of the national physical guidelines? Also, are health care professionals routinely raising the issue of physical inactivity and would patients welcome support from health care professionals regarding inactivity? METHODOLOGY: A questionnaire was distributed in two GPs over a one-week period to evaluate patients knowledge of the national physical activity guidelines.
resultsNinety-four participants completed the questionnaire over one week (60 female; 34 male), with an average age of 54.2 (standard deviation: 19.9 years). 14% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 8-22%) of the total participants correctly knew the recommended national guidelines for physical activity. 52% (95% CI: 42-63%) recalled being asked by a health care professional about their activity levels. 46% (95% CI: 35-56%) would welcome support from a health care professional around improving their activity levels. DISCUSSION/
conclusionOnly 14% of responders correctly knew the current national minimum activity guidelines. Encouragingly 46% of participants in our study were interested in physical activity advice from a health care professional. Health care professionals need to be aware that many patients do not know the current physical activity guidelines and recognise that primary care may be an underutilised opportunity to educate and promote physical activity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.