Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30788135›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2019

The development and feasibility of a randomised family-based physical activity promotion intervention: the Families Reporting Every Step to Health (FRESH) study.

Justin M Guagliano, Helen Elizabeth Brown, Emma Coombes, Claire Hughes, Andy P Jones, Katie L Morton, Edward C F Wilson, Esther M F van Sluijs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

8 authors.

Justin M Guagliano1MRC Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4450-5700
Helen Elizabeth Brown1MRC Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Emma Coombes2Norwich Medical School and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Claire Hughes3Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Andy P Jones2Norwich Medical School and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Katie L Morton1MRC Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Edward C F Wilson4Cambridge Centre for Health Services Research, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Esther M F van Sluijs1MRC Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 15/01/19Department of Health PHR/15/01/19Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/7Medical Research Council MR/K023187/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a need for high-quality research aiming to increase physical activity in families. This study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of FRESH (Families Reporting Every Step to Health), a child-led family-based physical activity intervention delivered online.

methodsIn a two-armed randomised feasibility study, 12 families (with an 8-10-year-old index child) were allocated to a 'child-only' (CO) or 'family' arm (FAM) of the theory-based FRESH intervention. Both received access to the FRESH website, allowing participants to select step challenges to 'travel' to target cities around the world, log their steps, and track their progress as they virtually globetrot. Only index children wore pedometers in CO; in FAM, all family members wore pedometers and worked towards collective goals. All family members were eligible to participate in the evaluation. Mixed-methods process evaluation (questionnaires and family focus groups) at 6-week follow-up consisted of completing questionnaires assessing acceptability of the intervention and accompanying effectiveness evaluation, focussed on physical (e.g. fitness, blood pressure), psychosocial (e.g. social support), and behavioural (e.g. objectively-measured family physical activity) measures.

resultsAll families were retained (32 participants). Parents enjoyed FRESH and all children found it fun. More FAM children wanted to continue with FRESH, found the website easy to use, and enjoyed wearing pedometers. FAM children also found it easier to reach goals. Most CO families would have preferred whole family participation. Compared to CO, FAM exhibited greater website engagement as they travelled to more cities (36 ± 11 vs. 13 ± 8) and failed fewer challenges (1.5 ± 1 vs. 3 ± 1). Focus groups also revealed that most families wanted elements of competition. All children enjoyed being part of the evaluation, and adults disagreed that there were too many intervention measures (overall, 2.4 ± 1.3) or that data collection took too long (overall, 2.2 ± 1.1).

conclusionFRESH was feasible and acceptable to participating families; however, findings favoured the FAM group. Recruitment, intervention fidelity and delivery and some measurement procedures are particular areas that require further attention for optimisation. Testing the preliminary effectiveness of FRESH on family physical activity is a necessary next step.

trial registrationThis study was registered and given an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN12789422). Registered 16 March 2016. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12789422.

Indexed as

ChildrenCo-participationCo-physical activityDadsFathersMothersMumsParentYouth

Identifiers

PMID30788135
PMCPMC6368737

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.