Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39543753›Full record

Trial reportBMC research notes2024

Effects of a dog activity tracker on owners' walking: a community-based randomised controlled trial.

Matthew N Ahmadi, Raaj Kishore Biswas, Lauren Powell, Adrian Bauman, Cathie Sherrington, Anthony Podberscek, Paul McGreevy, Ryan E Rhodes, Emmanuel Stamatakis

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC research notes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Matthew N AhmadiHub D17, Charles Perkins Centre L6 West, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. matthew.ahmadi@sydney.edu.au.
Raaj Kishore BiswasHub D17, Charles Perkins Centre L6 West, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Lauren PowellSchool of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Adrian BaumanCharles Perkins Centre, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Cathie SherringtonSydney Musculoskeletal Health and School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, University of Sydney, King George V Building, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (C39), Sydney Local Health District., Sydney, Australia.
Anthony PodberscekUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Paul McGreevySchool of Environmental and Rural Science, Faculty of Science, Agriculture, Business and Law, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia.
Ryan E RhodesSchool of Exercise Science, Physical and Health Education, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.
Emmanuel StamatakisHub D17, Charles Perkins Centre L6 West, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

Human Animal Bond Research Institute HAB18-036
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveA promising strategy to increase population physical activity is through promotion of dog walking. Informed by multi-process action control and nascent dog-walking theory, we examined the effectiveness of a 3-month technology-based (dog tracker) 2-arm randomised controlled dog-walking intervention to increase dog-owner daily physical activity in the general community in Sydney, Australia.

results37 participants were allocated to the intervention group (mean age = 43.2 [SD 11.9]) and 40 to the control group (mean age = 42.3 [SD 11.9]). Both groups averaged more than 10,500 steps/day at baseline. There was no evidence of within- or between-group physical activity differences across timepoints. The results remained consistent after exclusion of participants who had data collected during COVID-19 lockdowns. Compared with baseline, both groups had significant increases in sedentary time during the post-intervention, and 6 month follow-up. The absence of significant differences between-group physical activity differences may be attributable to the ceiling effect of both groups already being sufficiently active. These results provide useful guidance to future studies intended to assess the efficacy of technology-based dog-walking interventions. Future dog-walking interventions should specifically target physically inactive dog owners.

trial registrationACTRN12619001391167 (10/10/2019); Retrospectively registered.

Indexed as

COVID-19WalkingAdultAnimalsAustraliaDogsExerciseFemaleFitness TrackersHealth PromotionHumansMaleMiddle AgedSARS-CoV-2CommunityDaily stepsDog-walkingPhysical activityTracker

Identifiers

PMID39543753
PMCPMC11566059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.