Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30352317›Full record

Trial reportPublic health2018

The associations between the response efficacy and objective and subjective change in physical activity and diet in the Information and Risk Modification trial.

C Wou, B Silarova, S Griffin, J A Usher-Smith

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

C WouThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 113 Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK.
B SilarovaMRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Box 285 Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0SL, UK.
S GriffinThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 113 Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK; MRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Box 285 Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0SL, UK.
J A Usher-SmithThe Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 113 Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK. Electronic address: Jau20@medschl.cam.ac.uk.

Funding

ARACHIDONATE METABOLISM IN GLOMERULONEPHRITIS/VASCULITISK08HL001313 · NHLBI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI LEFKOWITH, JAMES B · 1985 to 1988
–
British Heart Foundation RG/13/13/30194British Heart Foundation SP/09/002Medical Research Council G0800270Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/4Medical Research Council MR/L003120/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMany health promotion campaigns and interventions focussing on improving health-related behaviours have been based on targeting response efficacy. This is based on the assumption that response efficacy is an important modifiable determinant of behaviour change. This study aimed to quantify the association between response efficacy and objective and subjective measures of physical activity and diet. STUDY

designProspective cohort analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial.

methodsA total of 953 participants were assessed for response efficacy at baseline and 12 weeks following randomisation to interventions to increase physical activity and improve diet. Subjective measures were collected via a self-report questionnaire that included two questions used to derive the Cambridge Index of physical activity and questions about daily or weekly fruit and vegetable, whole grain, meat and fish intake, based on the dietary guidelines to lower cardiovascular risk. Objective measures were quantified using accelerometers and plasma carotenoids.

resultsThe mean change in response efficacy for physical activity was +0.5 (standard deviation [SD] 2.0) and for diet was +0.5 (SD 2.1).There were no clinically or statistically significant associations between baseline or change in response efficacy and objective and subjective measures of physical activity or objective measures of diet. There was a small statistically significant association between baseline response efficacy and change in self-reported wholegrain consumption, but this is unlikely to be clinically significant.

conclusionsResponse efficacy is not a fundamental determinant of diet and physical activity and should not be the main focus of interventions targeting these behaviours.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCardiovascular DiseasesDietExerciseFemaleHealth PromotionHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSelf ReportBehaviour changeDietPhysical activityPremature mortalityPreventionResponse efficacy

Identifiers

PMID30352317
PMCPMC6292838

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.