Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32142507›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2020

Evaluation of a very brief pedometer-based physical activity intervention delivered in NHS Health Checks in England: The VBI randomised controlled trial.

Wendy Hardeman, Joanna Mitchell, Sally Pears, Miranda Van Emmenis, Florence Theil, Vijay S Gc, Joana C Vasconcelos, Kate Westgate, Søren Brage, Marc Suhrcke and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

16 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Wendy HardemanBehavioural and Implementation Science Group, School of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6498-9407
Joanna MitchellBehavioural Science Group, Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2138-3402
Sally PearsBehavioural Science Group, Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6417-1402
Miranda Van EmmenisBehavioural Science Group, Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Florence TheilBehavioural Science Group, Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Vijay S GcHealth Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0365-2605
Joana C VasconcelosImperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7709-4058
Kate WestgateMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0283-3562
Søren BrageMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1265-7355
Marc SuhrckeCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7263-8626
Simon J GriffinMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2157-4797
Ann Louise KinmonthPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Edward C F WilsonHealth Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8369-1577
A Toby PrevostImperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1723-0796
Stephen SuttonBehavioural Science Group, Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
VBI Research Team
University of Cambridge · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GBImperial College London · GBLuxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research · LU

Funding

Department of Health IS-BRC-1215-20014Department of Health RP-PG-0608-10079Medical Research Council MC_UU_00006/4Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/3Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/4
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe majority of people do not achieve recommended levels of physical activity. There is a need for effective, scalable interventions to promote activity. Self-monitoring by pedometer is a potentially suitable strategy. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief (5-minute) pedometer-based intervention ('Step It Up') delivered as part of National Health Service (NHS) Health Checks in primary care. METHODS AND

findingsThe Very Brief Intervention (VBI) Trial was a two parallel-group, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 3-month follow-up, conducted in 23 primary care practices in the East of England. Participants were 1,007 healthy adults aged 40 to 74 years eligible for an NHS Health Check. They were randomly allocated (1:1) using a web-based tool between October 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, to either intervention (505) or control group (502), stratified by primary care practice. Participants were aware of study group allocation. Control participants received the NHS Health Check only. Intervention participants additionally received Step It Up: a 5-minute face-to-face discussion, written materials, pedometer, and step chart. The primary outcome was accelerometer-based physical activity volume at 3-month follow-up adjusted for sex, 5-year age group, and general practice. Secondary outcomes included time spent in different intensities of physical activity, self-reported physical activity, and economic measures. We conducted an in-depth fidelity assessment on a subsample of Health Check consultations. Participants' mean age was 56 years, two-thirds were female, they were predominantly white, and two-thirds were in paid employment. The primary outcome was available in 859 (85.3%) participants. There was no significant between-group difference in activity volume at 3 months (adjusted intervention effect 8.8 counts per minute [cpm]; 95% CI -18.7 to 36.3; p = 0.53). We found no significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes of step counts per day, time spent in moderate or vigorous activity, time spent in vigorous activity, and time spent in moderate-intensity activity (accelerometer-derived variables); as well as in total physical activity, home-based activity, work-based activity, leisure-based activity, commuting physical activity, and screen or TV time (self-reported physical activity variables). Of the 505 intervention participants, 491 (97%) received the Step it Up intervention. Analysis of 37 intervention consultations showed that 60% of Step it Up components were delivered faithfully. The intervention cost £18.04 per participant. Incremental cost to the NHS per 1,000-step increase per day was £96 and to society was £239. Adverse events were reported by 5 intervention participants (of which 2 were serious) and 5 control participants (of which 2 were serious). The study's limitations include a participation rate of 16% and low return of audiotapes by practices for fidelity assessment.

conclusionsIn this large well-conducted trial, we found no evidence of effect of a plausible very brief pedometer intervention embedded in NHS Health Checks on objectively measured activity at 3-month follow-up.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials (ISRCTN72691150).

Indexed as

ExerciseFitness TrackersHealthy LifestylePrimary Health CareState MedicineActigraphyAdultAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandFemaleHealth Care CostsHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID32142507
PMCPMC7059905
OpenAlexW3010452050

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.