Observational studyBMC public health2024
Moving an exercise referral scheme to remote delivery during the Covid-19 pandemic: an observational study examining the impact on uptake, adherence, and costs.
Observational study in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding the factors influencing participant engagement and adherence in exercise referral in the City of Manchester.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2026Article
- Adaptations to the welsh national exercise referral scheme during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study exploring the experiences of service users and providers and supplementary out-of-pocket cost analysis.BMC public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExercise Referral Schemes (ERSs) have been implemented across Western nations to stimulate an increase in adult physical activity but evidence of their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is equivocal. Poor ERS uptake and adherence can have a negative impact on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and, if patterned by socio-demographic factors, can also introduce or widen health inequalities. Different modes of ERS delivery have the potential to reduce costs and enhance uptake and adherence. The primary aim of this study was to examine the effect of different programmes of ERS delivery on scheme uptake and adherence. Secondary aims were to examine the effect of socio-demographic factors on scheme uptake and adherence, and the impact of delivery mode on the expected resource and corresponding costs of delivering core parts of the programme.
methodsThis was an observational cohort study with cost analysis. Routine monitoring data covering a three-year period (2019-2021) from one large UK ERS (number of patients = 28,917) were analysed. During this period three different programmes of delivery were operated in succession: standard (all sessions delivered face-to-face at a designated physical location), hybrid (sessions initially delivered face-to-face and then switched to remote delivery in response to the Covid-19 pandemic), and modified (sessions delivered face-to-face, remotely, or a combination of the two, as determined on a case-by-case basis according to Covid-19 risk and personal preferences). Multi-level binary logistic and linear regression were performed to examine the effect of programme of delivery and socio-demographic characteristics on uptake and adherence. Cost data were sourced from regional-level coordinators and through NERS audits supplied by national-level NERS managers and summarised using descriptive statistics.
resultsThere was no effect of programme of delivery on scheme uptake. In comparison to those on the standard programme (who attended a mean of 23.1 exercise sessions) those on the modified programme had higher adherence (mean attendance of 25.7 sessions) while those on the hybrid programme had lower adherence (mean attendance of 19.4 sessions). Being older, or coming from an area of lower deprivation, increased the likelihood of uptake and adherence. Being female increased the chance of uptake but was associated with lower adherence. Patients referred to the programme from secondary care were more likely to take up the programme than those referred from primary care for prevention purposes, however their attendance at exercise sessions was lower. The estimated cost per person for face-to-face delivery of a typical 16-week cycle of the scheme was £65.42. The same cycle of the scheme delivered virtually (outside of a pandemic context) was estimated to cost £201.71 per person.
conclusionsThis study contributes new evidence concerning the effect of programme of delivery on ERS uptake and adherence and strengthens existing evidence concerning the effect of socio-economic factors. The findings direct the attention of ERS providers towards specific patient sub-groups who, if inequalities are to be addressed, require additional intervention to support uptake and adherence. At a time when providers may be considering alternative programmes of delivery, these findings challenge expectations that implementing virtual delivery will necessarily lead to cost savings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.