Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31623584›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

General practice referral of 'at risk' populations to community leisure services: applying the RE-AIM framework to evaluate the impact of a community-based physical activity programme for inactive adults with long-term conditions.

E L Bird, M S Y Biddle, J E Powell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Outcomes and instruments used in social prescribing: a modified umbrella review.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Can Social Prescribing Foster Individual and Community Well-Being? A Systematic Review of the Evidence.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

3 authors.

E L BirdCentre for Public Health and Wellbeing, University of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK. emma.bird@uwe.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9603-3434
M S Y BiddleCentre for Public Health and Wellbeing, University of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK.
J E PowellCentre for Public Health and Wellbeing, University of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK.

Funding

Broadway, Chard, Crewkerne and Ilminster (CLICK) Federation N/ASomerset Activity and Sports Partnership N/ASomerset Health and Wellbeing Board N/ASouth Somerset District Council N/ASport England N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the UK a high proportion of adults with long-term conditions do not engage in regular physical activity. General practice (GP) referral to community-based physical activity is one strategy that has gained traction in recent years. However, evidence for the real-world effectiveness and translation of such programmes is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the individual and organisational impacts of the 'CLICK into Activity' programme - GP referral of inactive adults living with (or at risk of) long-term conditions to community-based physical activity.

methodsA mixed methods evaluation using the RE-AIM framework was conducted with data obtained from a range of sources: follow-up questionnaires, qualitative interviews, and programme-related documentation, including programme cost data. Triangulation methods were used to analyse data, with findings synthesised across each dimension of the RE-AIM framework.

resultsA total of 602 individuals were referred to CLICK into Activity physical activity sessions. Of those referred, 326 individuals participated in at least one session; the programme therefore reached 30.2% of the 1080 recruitment target. A range of individual-, social-, and environmental-level factors contributed to initial physical activity participation. Positive changes over time in physical activity and other outcomes assessed were observed among participants. Programme adoption at GP surgeries was successful, but the GP referral process was not consistently implemented across sites. Physical activity sessions were successfully implemented, with programme deliverers and group-based delivery identified as having an influential effect on programme outcomes. Changes to physical activity session content were made in response to participant feedback. CLICK into Activity cost £175,000 over 3 years, with an average cost per person attending at least one programme session of £535.

conclusionsDespite not reaching its recruitment target, CLICK into Activity was successfully adopted. Positive outcomes were associated with participation, although low 6- and 12-month follow-up response rates limit understanding of longer-term programme effects. Contextual and individual factors, which may facilitate successful implementation with the target population, were identified. Findings highlight strategies to be explored in future development and implementation of GP referral to community-based physical activity programmes targeting inactive adults living with (or at risk of) long-term conditions.

Indexed as

ExerciseGeneral PracticeReferral and ConsultationAdolescentAdultAgedChronic DiseaseCommunity Health ServicesFemaleHumansLeisure ActivitiesMaleMiddle AgedProgram EvaluationRisk AssessmentSedentary BehaviorEvaluationImplementationLong-term conditionsPhysical activityRE-AIMReferralSocial prescribing

Identifiers

PMID31623584
PMCPMC6798368

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.