Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36932423›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2023

Snacktivity™ to promote physical activity and reduce future risk of disease in the population: protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial and nested qualitative study.

Amanda J Daley, Ryan A Griffin, Catherine A Moakes, James P Sanders, Magdalena Skrybant, Natalie Ives, Ben Maylor, Sheila M Greenfield, Kajal Gokal, Helen M Parretti and 11 more

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  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

21 authors.

Amanda J DaleyCentre for Lifestyle Medicine and Behaviour, School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK. a.daley@lboro.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4866-8726
Ryan A GriffinBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, Institute for Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Catherine A MoakesBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, Institute for Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
James P SandersCentre for Lifestyle Medicine and Behaviour, School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.
Magdalena SkrybantInstitute for Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Natalie IvesBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, Institute for Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Ben MaylorDiabetes Research Centre, College of Life Sciences, University of Leicester and NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.
Sheila M GreenfieldInstitute for Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Kajal GokalCentre for Lifestyle Medicine and Behaviour, School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.
Helen M ParrettiNorwich Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Stuart J H BiddleUniversity of Southern Queensland, Springfield, Australia.
Colin GreavesSchool of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Ralph MaddisonInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.
Nanette MutriePhysical Activity for Health Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Dale W EsligerSchool of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.
Lauren SherarSchool of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.
Charlotte L EdwardsonDiabetes Research Centre, College of Life Sciences, University of Leicester and NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.
Tom YatesDiabetes Research Centre, College of Life Sciences, University of Leicester and NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.
Emma FrewHealth Economics Unit, Institute for Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Sarah TearneBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, Institute for Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Kate JollyInstitute for Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

NIHR Programme Grants RP-PG-0618-20008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany people do not regularly participate in physical activity, which may negatively impact their health. Current physical activity guidelines are focused on promoting weekly accumulation of at least 150 min of moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA). Whilst revised guidance now recognises the importance of making small changes to physical activity behaviour, guidance still focuses on adults needing to achieve at least 150 min of MVPA per week. An alternative 'whole day' approach that could motivate the public to be more physically active, is a concept called Snacktivity™. Instead of focusing on achieving 150 min per week of physical activity, for example 30 min of MVPA over 5 days, Snacktivity™ encourages the public to achieve this through small, but frequent, 2-5 min 'snacks' of MVPA throughout the whole day.

methodsThe primary aim is to undertake a feasibility trial with nested qualitative interviews to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the Snacktivity™ intervention to inform the design of a subsequent phase III randomised trial. A two-arm randomised controlled feasibility trial aiming to recruit 80 inactive adults will be conducted. Recruitment will be from health and community settings and social media. Participants will be individually randomised (1:1 ratio) to receive either the Snacktivity™ intervention or usual care. The intervention will last 12 weeks with assessment of outcomes completed before and after the intervention in all participants. We are interested in whether the Snacktivity™ trial is appealing to participants (assessed by the recruitment rate) and if the Snacktivity™ intervention and trial methods are acceptable to participants (assessed by Snacktivity™/physical activity adherence and retention rates). The intervention will be delivered by health care providers within health care consultations or by researchers. Participants' experiences of the trial and intervention, and health care providers' views of delivering the intervention within health consultations will be explored. DISCUSSION: The development of physical activity interventions that can be delivered at scale are needed. The findings from this study will inform the viability and design of a phase III trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Snacktivity™ to increase physical activity.

trial registrationISRCTN: 64851242.

Indexed as

HealthInterviewsPhysical activityRandomised feasibility trialSmall boutsSnacktivity™

Identifiers

PMID36932423
PMCPMC10021043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read29
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.