P69 Family-based physical activity promotion: results from the families reporting every step to health (FRESH) pilot randomised controlled trial

IntroductionFamily-based physical activity (PA) interventions present a promising avenue to promote children’s activity; however, high-quality experimental research is lacking. This paper describes the protocol for the FRESH (Families Reporting Every Step to Health) pilot trial, a child-led family-based PA intervention delivered online.Methods and analysisFRESH is a three-armed, parallel-group, randomised controlled pilot trial using a 1:1:1 allocation ratio with follow-up assessments at 8 and 52 weeks postbaseline. Families will be eligible if a minimum of one child in school Years 3–6 (aged 7–11 years) and at least one adult responsible for that child are willing to participate. Family members can take part in the intervention irrespective of their participation in the accompanying evaluation and vice versa.Following baseline assessment, families will be randomly allocated to one of three arms: (1) FRESH; (2) pedometer-only or (3) no-intervention control. All family members in the pedometer-only and FRESH arms receive pedometers and generic PA promotion information. FRESH families additionally receive access to the intervention website; allowing participants to select step challenges to ‘travel’ to target cities around the world, log steps and track progress as they virtually globetrot. Control families will receive no treatment. All family members will be eligible to participate in the evaluation with two follow-ups (8 and 52 weeks). Physical (eg, fitness and blood pressure), psychosocial (eg, social support) and behavioural (eg, objectively measured family PA) measures will be collected at each time point. At 8-week follow-up, a mixed methods process evaluation will be conducted (questionnaires and family focus groups) assessing acceptability of the intervention and evaluation. FRESH families’ website engagement will also be explored.Ethics and disseminationThis study received ethical approval from the Ethics Committee for the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Cambridge. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, conferences and to participating families.Trial registration numberISRCTN12789422

Download Full-text

Pilot study to assess the feasibility of running a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of physical activity promotion in general practice in increasing levels of exercise and reducing mental health problems among adolescents

http://isrctn.org/> ◽

10.1186/isrctn18871417 ◽

2012 ◽

Author(s):

Fiona Brooks

Keyword(s):

Mental Health ◽

Physical Activity ◽

General Practice ◽

Pilot Study ◽

Randomised Controlled Trial ◽

Mental Health Problems ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Physical Activity Promotion ◽

Activity Promotion ◽

Randomised Controlled

Download Full-text

A whole family-based physical activity promotion intervention: findings from the families reporting every step to health (FRESH) pilot randomised controlled trial

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity ◽

10.1186/s12966-020-01025-3 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 17 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Justin M. Guagliano ◽

Sofie M. Armitage ◽

Helen Elizabeth Brown ◽

Emma Coombes ◽

Francesco Fusco ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Physical Activity ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Pilot Trial ◽

Physical Activity Promotion ◽

Full Scale ◽

Target Sample Size ◽

Activity Promotion ◽

Family Based ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Objectively Measured

Abstract Introduction This study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of FRESH (Families Reporting Every Step to Health), a theory-based child-led family physical activity (PA) intervention delivered online. We also assessed the preliminary effectiveness of the intervention on outcomes of interest and whether pre-specified criteria were met to progress to a full-scale definitive trial. Methods In a three-armed randomised pilot trial, 41 families (with a 7–11-year-old index child) were allocated to a: ‘family’ (FAM), ‘pedometer-only’ (PED), or a no-treatment control (CON) arm. The FAM arm received access to the FRESH website, allowing participants to select step challenges to ‘travel’ to target cities around the world, log their steps, and track progress as families virtually globetrot. FAM and PED arms also received family sets of pedometers. All family members could participate in the evaluation. Physical (e.g., fitness, blood pressure), psychosocial (e.g., social support), behavioural (e.g., objectively-measured PA), and economic (e.g., expenditure for PA) data were collected at baseline, 8- and 52-weeks. Results At 8- and 52-weeks, 98 and 88% of families were retained, respectively. Most children liked participating in the study (> 90%) and thought it was fun (> 80%). Compared to the PED (45%) and CON (39%) arms, a higher percentage of children in the FAM (81%) arm reported doing more activities with their family. Adults agreed that FRESH encouraged their family do more PA and made their family more aware of the amount of PA they do. No notable between-group differences were found for childrens’ minutes in moderate-to-vigorous PA. Sizeable changes of 9.4 (95%CI: 0.4, 18.4) and 15.3 (95%CI: 6.0, 24.5) minutes in moderate-to-vigorous PA was found for adults in the FAM group compared to those in the PED or CON groups, respectively. No other notable differences were found. Conclusion This study demonstrates feasibility and acceptability of the FRESH intervention. All progression criteria were at least partially satisfied. However, we failed to recruit the target sample size and did not find a signal of effectiveness on PA particularly long-term or in children. Further refinements are required to progress to a full-scale trial. Trial registration This study was prospectively registered (ISRCTN12789422) on 16/03/2016.

Download Full-text

A cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the GoActive intervention to increase physical activity among adolescents aged 13–14 years

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014419 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 7 (9) ◽

pp. e014419 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Helen Elizabeth Brown ◽

Fiona Whittle ◽

Stephanie T Jong ◽

Caroline Croxson ◽

Stephen J Sharp ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Physical Activity ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Randomised Controlled Trial ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Physical Activity Promotion ◽

Adolescent Physical Activity ◽

Causal Pathways ◽

Activity Promotion ◽

Randomised Controlled

IntroductionAdolescent physical activity promotion is rarely effective, despite adolescence being critical for preventing physical activity decline. Low adolescent physical activity is likely to last into adulthood, increasing health risks. The Get Others Active (GoActive) intervention is evidence-based and was developed iteratively with adolescents and teachers. This intervention aims to increase physical activity through increased peer support, self-efficacy, group cohesion, self-esteem and friendship quality, and is implemented using a tiered-leadership system. We previously established feasibility in one school and conducted a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) in three schools.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a school-based cluster RCT (CRCT) in 16 secondary schools targeting all year 9 students (n=2400). In eight schools, GoActive will run for two terms: weekly facilitation support from a council-funded intervention facilitator will be offered in term 1, with more distant support in term 2. Tutor groups choose two weekly activities, encouraged by older adolescent mentors and weekly peer leaders. Students gain points for trying new activities; points are entered into a between-class competition. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, interim (week 6), postintervention (week 14–16) and 10-month follow-up (main outcome). The primary outcome will be change from baseline in daily accelerometer-assessed moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. Secondary outcomes include accelerometer-assessed activity intensities on weekdays/weekends; self-reported physical activity and psychosocial outcomes; cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses; mixed-methods process evaluation integrating information from focus groups and participation logs/questionnaires.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for the conduct of the study was gained from the University of Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee. Given the lack of rigorously evaluated interventions, and the inclusion of objective measurement of physical activity, long-term follow-up and testing of causal pathways, the results of a CRCT of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of GoActive are expected to add substantially to the limited evidence on adolescent physical activity promotion. Workshops will be held with key stakeholders including students, parents, teachers, school governors and government representatives to discuss plans for wider dissemination of the intervention.Trial registration numberISRCTN31583496.

Download Full-text

Experiences in physical activity promotion in health care settings for primary prevention in the UK

Swiss Sports & Exercise Medicine ◽

10.34045/ssem/2014/11 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 62 (2) ◽

Keyword(s):

Physical Activity ◽

Primary Care ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Full Range ◽

Tertiary Care ◽

Physical Activity Promotion ◽

Community Based ◽

Activity Promotion ◽

Randomised Controlled

In addition to the delivery of primary care services, recent changes to the NHS in the United Kingdom have placed increasing responsibility on GPs for the commissioning of the full range of health services from prevention through to clinical interventions and rehabilitation. Whilst historically there has always been an expectation that primary care professionals were ideally placed to provide support for prevention as well as treatment, their active engagement in the promotion of physical activity has remained largely superficial. With notable exceptions where individuals have a personal interest or commitment, the majority of health professionals tend to limit themselves to peremptory non-specific advice at best, or frequently don’t broach the subject at all. There are a number of reasons for this including increasing time pressures, a general lack of knowledge, limited evidence and concerns about litigation in the event of an adverse exercise induced event. However in the 1990s there was a surge of interest in the emerging “Exercise on Prescription” model where patients could be referred to community based exercise instructors for a structured “prescription” of exercise in community leisure centres. Despite the continuing popularity of the model there remain problems particularly in getting the active support of health professionals who generally cite the same barriers as previously identified. In an attempt to overcome some of these problems Wales established a national exercise referral scheme with an associated randomised controlled trial. The scheme evaluated well and had subsequently evolved with new developments including integration with secondary and tertiary care pathways, accredited training for exercise instructors and exit routes into alternative community based exercise opportunities.

Download Full-text