ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2016
Recruitment, screening, and baseline participant characteristics in the WALK 2.0 study: A randomized controlled trial using web 2.0 applications to promote physical activity.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Behavioural interventions delivered through interactive social media for health behaviour change, health outcomes, and health equity in the adult population.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Interpreting population reach of a large, successful physical activity trial delivered through primary care.BMC public health · 2018Trial
- The effectiveness of a web 2.0 physical activity intervention in older adults - a randomised controlled trial.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2018Trial
- Effectiveness of a Web 2.0 Intervention to Increase Physical Activity in Real-World Settings: Randomized Ecological Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Trial
- Using Web 2.0 applications to promote health-related physical activity: findings from the WALK 2.0 randomised controlled trial.British journal of sports medicine · 2017Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Development and validation of colorectal cancer and colonoscopy screening health beliefs scale for first-degree relatives of people with colorectal cancer (CCHBS-FDR) in China.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2025Article
- Usability and feasibility of an online intervention for older adults to support changes to routines and the home ('Light, activity and sleep in my daily life').BMC public health · 2024Article
- Recruitment in Appalachian, Rural and Older Adult Populations in an Artificial Intelligence World: Study Using Human-Mediated Follow-Up.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Nurses' occupational physical activity and workload in a perioperative intensive care unit in Slovenia.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Community-based, cluster-randomized pilot trial of a cardiovascular mHealth intervention: Rationale, design, and baseline findings of the FAITH! Trial.American heart journal · 2022Article
- Digital tools for the recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a systematic map.Trials · 2020Review
- Validity and responsiveness to change of the Active Australia Survey according to gender, age, BMI, education, and physical activity level and awareness.BMC public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe in detail the recruitment methods and enrollment rates, the screening methods, and the baseline characteristics of a sample of adults participating in the Walk 2.0 Study, an 18 month, 3-arm randomized controlled trial of a Web 2.0 based physical activity intervention.
methodsA two-fold recruitment plan was developed and implemented, including a direct mail-out to an extract from the Australian Electoral Commission electoral roll, and other supplementary methods including email and telephone. Physical activity screening involved two steps: a validated single-item self-report instrument and the follow-up Active Australia Questionnaire. Readiness for physical activity participation was also based on a two-step process of administering the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire and, where needed, further clearance from a medical practitioner.
resultsAcross all recruitment methods, a total of 1244 participants expressed interest in participating, of which 656 were deemed eligible. Of these, 504 were later enrolled in the Walk 2.0 trial (77% enrollment rate) and randomized to the Walk 1.0 group (n = 165), the Walk 2.0 group (n = 168), or the Logbook group (n = 171). Mean age of the total sample was 50.8 years, with 65.2% female and 79.1% born in Australia.
conclusionThe results of this recruitment process demonstrate the successful use of multiple strategies to obtain a diverse sample of adults eligible to take part in a web-based physical activity promotion intervention. The use of dual screening processes ensured safe participation in the intervention. This approach to recruitment and physical activity screening can be used as a model for further trials in this area.
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.