Characteristics of control group participants who increased their physical activity in a cluster-randomized lifestyle intervention trial

Older adults’ physical activity (PA) is low. We examined whether eight months of resistance training increased PA level in community-dwelling older adults receiving home care. A two-armed cluster-randomized trial using parallel groups was conducted. The included participants were >70 years and received home care. The resistance training group performed resistance training using body weight, elastic bands, and water canes twice per week for eight months. The control group was informed about the national PA guidelines and received motivational talks. The ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer was used to estimate PA. Outcomes included total PA (counts per minute), sedentary behavior (min/day), light PA (min/day), moderate-to-vigorous PA (min/day), and steps (mean/day). Between-group differences were analyzed using multilevel linear mixed models. Twelve clusters were randomized to either resistance training (7 clusters, 60 participants) or the control group (5 clusters, 44 participants). A total of 101 participants (median age 86.0 (interquartile range 80–90) years) had valid accelerometer data and were included in the analysis. There were no statistically significant between-group differences for any of the PA outcomes after four or eight months. This study offers no evidence of increased PA level following resistance training in older adults with home care.

Download Full-text

Effects of a Lifestyle Intervention in Routine Care on Short- and Long-Term Maternal Weight Retention and Breastfeeding Behavior—12 Months Follow-up of the Cluster-Randomized GeliS Trial

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm8060876 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 8 (6) ◽

pp. 876 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Julia Hoffmann ◽

Julia Günther ◽

Lynne Stecher ◽

Monika Spies ◽

Dorothy Meyer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Lifestyle Intervention ◽

Exclusive Breastfeeding ◽

Maternal Obesity ◽

Routine Care ◽

Control Group ◽

Weight Retention ◽

Maternal Weight ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Postpartum Weight ◽

Cluster Randomized

Postpartum weight retention (PPWR) is associated with an increased risk for maternal obesity and is discussed to be influenced by breastfeeding. The objective was to evaluate the effect of a lifestyle intervention delivered three times during pregnancy and once in the postpartum period on PPWR and on maternal breastfeeding behavior. In total, 1998 participants of the cluster-randomized “healthy living in pregnancy” (GeliS) trial were followed up until the 12th month postpartum (T2pp). Data were collected using maternity records and questionnaires. Data on breastfeeding behavior were collected at T2pp. At T2pp, mean PPWR was lower in women receiving counseling (IV) compared to the control group (C) (−0.2 ± 4.8 kg vs. 0.6 ± 5.2 kg), but there was no significant evidence of between-group differences (adjusted p = 0.123). In the IV, women lost more weight from delivery until T2pp compared to the C (adjusted p = 0.008) and showed a slightly higher rate of exclusive breastfeeding (IV: 87.4%; C: 84.4%; adjusted p < 0.001). In conclusion, we found evidence for slight improvements of maternal postpartum weight characteristics and the rate of exclusive breastfeeding in women receiving a lifestyle intervention embedded in routine care, although the clinical meaning of these findings is unclear.

Download Full-text

Changes in Sedentary Time and Physical Activity in Response to an Exercise Training and/or Lifestyle Intervention

Journal of Physical Activity and Health ◽

10.1123/jpah.2012-0340 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 11 (7) ◽

pp. 1324-1333 ◽

Cited By ~ 37

Author(s):

Sarah Kozey-Keadle ◽

John Staudenmayer ◽

Amanda Libertine ◽

Marianna Mavilia ◽

Kate Lyden ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Physical Activity ◽

Exercise Training ◽

Lifestyle Intervention ◽

Sedentary Time ◽

Moderate Intensity ◽

Control Group ◽

Activity Levels ◽

Exercise Training Program ◽

Quasi Experimental ◽

Multiple Behaviors

Background:Individuals may compensate for exercise training by modifying nonexercise behavior (ie, increase sedentary time (ST) and decrease nonexercise physical activity [NEPA]).Purpose:To compare ST and NEPA during a 12-week exercise training and/or lifestyle intervention.Methods:Fifty-seven overweight/obese participants (19 M/39 F) completed the study (mean ± SD; age 43.6 ± 9.9 y, BMI 35.1 ± 4.6 kg/m2). There were no between-group differences in activity levels at baseline. Four-arm quasi-experimental intervention study 1) EX: exercise 5 days per week at a moderate intensity (40% to 65% VO2peak) 2) rST: reduce ST and increase NEPA, 3) EX-rST: combination of EX and rST and 4) CON: maintain habitual behavior.Results:For the EX group, ST did not decrease significantly (mean ((95% confidence interval) 0.48 (–2.2 to 3.1)% and there was no changes in NEPA at week-12 compared with baseline. The changes were variable, with approximately 50% of participants increasing ST and decreasing NEPA. The rST group decreased ST (–4.8 (0.8 to 7.9)% and increased NEPA. EX-rST significantly decreased ST (–5.1 (–2.2 to 7.9)% and increased time in NEPA at week-12 compared with baseline. The control group increased ST by 4.3 (0.8 to 7.9)%.Conclusions:Changes in nonexercise ST and NEPA are variable among participants in an exercise-training program, with nearly half decreasing NEPA compared with baseline. Interventions targeting multiple behaviors (ST and NEPA) may effectively reduce compensation and increase daily activity.

Download Full-text

The effects on self-efficacy, motivation and perceived barriers of an intervention targeting physical activity and sedentary behaviours in office workers: a cluster randomized control trial

BMC Public Health ◽

10.1186/s12889-021-11083-2 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Victoria Blom ◽

Emma Drake ◽

Lena V. Kallings ◽

Maria M. Ekblom ◽

Carla F. J. Nooijen

Keyword(s):

Physical Activity ◽

Sedentary Behaviour ◽

Self Efficacy ◽

Autonomous Motivation ◽

Perceived Barriers ◽

Control Group ◽

Cluster Randomized Control Trial ◽

Randomized Control ◽

Cluster Randomized ◽

Motivational Counselling

Abstract Background The importance of physical activity on health is clear, but changing behaviour is difficult. Successful interventions aiming to improve physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour is therefore of importance. The aim of this study was to evaluate effects on motivation, self-efficacy and barriers to change behaviour from two different behavioural intervention focusing either on reducing sedentary behaviour or on increasing physical activity as compared to a waiting list control group. Methods The study was designed as a cluster randomized control trial (RCT) within two private companies. Self-efficacy, motivation and perceived barriers were together with demographic variables assessed before and after a 6-month intervention. Participant cluster teams were randomly allocated to either the physical activity intervention (iPA), the sedentary behaviour intervention (iSED), or control group. The intervention was multi componential and included motivational counselling based on Cognitive behaviour therapy and Motivational interviewing, group activities and management involvement. Group differences were determined using Bayesian multilevel modelling (parameter estimate; credible interval (CI)), analysing complete cases and those who adhered to the protocol by adhering to at least 3 out of 5 intervention sessions. Results After the intervention, the complete cases analysis showed that the iPA group had significantly higher autonomous motivation (0.33, CI: 0.05–0.61) and controlled motivation (0.27, CI: 0.04–0.51) for physical activity compared with the control group. The iSED group scored less autonomous and controlled motivation compared to the iPA group (0.38, CI: − 0.69- -0.087 respectively − 0.32, CI: − 0.57-0.07) but no significant differences compared with the control group. Among individuals that adhered to the protocol, the results showed higher scores on Exercise (3.03, CI: 0.28–6.02) and Sedentary self-efficacy (3.59, CI: 0.35–7.15) for individuals in the iPA group and on Sedentary self-efficacy (4.77, CI: 0.59–9.44) for the iSED group compared to the control group. Conclusion These findings indicate that the interventions were successful in increasing self-efficacy in each intervention group and autonomous motivation for exercise in the iPA group, in particular when actively participating in the motivational counselling sessions.

Download Full-text

Prostate 8 study: A pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a web-based lifestyle intervention versus control group among men with prostate cancer.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2018.36.6_suppl.105 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽

pp. 105-105

Author(s):

Stacey A. Kenfield ◽

Erin Van Blarigan ◽

Niloufar Ameli ◽

Emil Lavaki ◽

Cynthia Monroy ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Physical Activity ◽

Prostate Cancer ◽

Lifestyle Intervention ◽

Cancer Progression ◽

Text Messaging ◽

Control Group ◽

Processed Meat ◽

Accelerometer Data ◽

Vigorous Activity ◽

Lifestyle Behaviors

105 Background: Lifestyle behaviors may reduce risk of prostate cancer progression. Guidelines and tools to support lifestyle modification are needed to improve prostate cancer care. Methods: We conducted a 12-week RCT among 73 men with clinical stage T1-T3a prostate cancer to determine if a lifestyle intervention that included a responsive website, Fitbits, and text messaging helps men adopt 8 healthy lifestyle behaviors (vigorous activity, not smoking, and 6 diet factors) compared to a control group. Eligible men had no contra-indications to aerobic exercise, Internet access, and engaged in ≤4 of the targeted 8 habits at baseline. We explored the efficacy of the intervention (n = 32) vs. control (n = 32) on behavior change via a lifestyle survey, 7 days of ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer data, and the Prostate 8 (P8) score (8 self-reported behaviors assigned 0 or 1 point, range 0-8). Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between arms. The median baseline P8 score was 3 in each arm. 12-week assessments were 88% complete (intervention, 94%; control, 82%). Intervention arm participants’ wore their Fitbits a median of 82 days (98%, IQR: 72-83), replied to a median of 71% of texts (N = 60, IQR: 57-89%), and visited the website a median of 3 days [IQR: 2-5] and over 3 visits [IQR: 2-5]. Baseline moderate and vigorous activity were self-reported as 3.7 hrs/wk and 12 min/wk (intervention) and 5.3 hrs/wk and 18 min/wk (control). 1 person was a smoker at baseline. Median [IQR] absolute change in the P8 score from baseline to 12 wks was 2.0 [1.0, 3.0] (intervention) and 0.0 [-1.0, 1.0] (control) (p = 0.0005); and the change between groups was statistically significant for cooked tomatoes, cruciferous vegetables, fish, processed meat, but not significant for healthy sources of vegetable fat (high at baseline) or vigorous activity. Accelerometer data indicated no significant differences in change in physical activity between arms. Conclusions: This novel intervention was feasible and acceptable. These data suggest that the intervention was effective for promoting healthier dietary changes; further research is warranted to examine how to facilitate improvements in physical activity. Clinical trial information: NCT02470936.

Download Full-text

The effects on self-efficacy, motivation and perceived barriers of an intervention targeting physical activity and sedentary behaviours in office workers: A cluster randomized control trial

10.21203/rs.3.rs-236326/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Victoria Blom ◽

Emma Drake ◽

Lena V. Kallings ◽

Maria M. Ekblom ◽

Carla F. J. Nooijen

Keyword(s):

Physical Activity ◽

Sedentary Behaviour ◽

Self Efficacy ◽

Autonomous Motivation ◽

Perceived Barriers ◽

Control Group ◽

Controlled Motivation ◽

Cluster Randomized Control Trial ◽

Randomized Control ◽

Cluster Randomized

Abstract Background The importance of physical activity on health is clear, but changing behaviour is difficult. Successful interventions aiming to improve physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour is therefore of importance. The aim of this study was to evaluate effects on motivation, self-efficacy and barriers to change behaviour from two different behavioral intervention focusing either on reducing sedentary behaviour or on increasing physical activity as compared to a waiting list control group Methods The study was designed as a cluster randomized control trial (RCT) within two private companies. Self-efficacy, motivation and perceived barriers were together with demographic variables assessed before and after a 6-month intervention. Participants were assigned a cluster team which was randomly allocated to either the physical activity intervention (iPA), the sedentary behaviour intervention (iSED), or control group. Group differences were determined using Bayesian multilevel modelling (parameter estimate; credible interval (CI)), analysing complete cases and those who adhered to the protocol by adhering to at least 3 out of 5 intervention sessions. Results After the intervention, the complete cases analysis showed that the iPA group had significantly higher autonomous motivation (0.33, CI: 0.05–0.61) and controlled motivation (0.27, CI: 0.04–0.51) for physical activity compared with the control group, and the iSED group scored less autonomous and controlled motivation compared to the iPA group (0.38, CI: -0.69- -0.087 respectively − 0.32, CI: -0.57-0.07). Among individuals that adhered to the protocol, the results showed higher scores on Exercise (3.03, CI: 0.28–6.02) and Sedentary self-efficacy (3.59, CI: 0.35–7.15) for individuals in the iPA group and on Sedentary self-efficacy (4.77, CI: 0.59–9.44) for the iSED group compared to the control group. Conclusion These findings indicate that the interventions were successful in increasing self-efficacy in each intervention group and autonomous motivation for exercise in the iPA group, in particular when actively participating in the motivational counselling sessions.

Download Full-text

The Effect of Changes in Physical Activity on Sedentary Behavior: Results From a Randomized Lifestyle Intervention Trial

American Journal of Health Promotion ◽

10.4278/ajhp.150129-quan-693 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 31 (4) ◽

pp. 287-295 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Juned Siddique ◽

Peter John de Chavez ◽

Lynette L. Craft ◽

Patty Freedson ◽

Bonnie Spring

Keyword(s):

Physical Activity ◽

Sedentary Behavior ◽

Lifestyle Intervention ◽

Screen Time ◽

Financial Incentives ◽

Intervention Study ◽

Intervention Trial ◽

Linear Mixed Effects ◽

Chicago Area ◽

Daily Changes

Purpose. To investigate whether changes in physical activity (PA) have an impact on sedentary behavior (SB) during a lifestyle intervention. Design. Study design was a randomized trial. Setting/Subjects. Participants (n = 204) were individuals with low PA and high sedentary leisure screen time from the Chicago area. Intervention. Participants were randomized to either increase PA (iPA) or decrease sedentary leisure (dSED). The intervention consisted of decision support, coaching, and financial incentives. For iPA participants, the goal was at least 60 min/d of self-reported moderate-tovigorous-intensity PA (MVPA). For dSED participants the goal was less than 90 min/d of sedentary leisure screen time. Measures. Daily accelerometer-based measures of SB and bout-corrected MVPA were obtained. Analysis. Linear mixed-effects models were fit to estimate the effect of the intervention on MVPA and total SB and to estimate the effect of daily changes in MVPA on daily SB. Results. The iPA participants increased their bout-corrected MVPA by 14 min/d (p < .001) and decreased their total SB by 18 min/d (p < .001). The dSED participants did not significantly change their PA or their total SB. On days when participants exercised, each 10-minute bout of MVPA was associated with a 6-minute decrease in SB on the same day (p < .001). Conclusion. In an intervention study designed to increase MVPA, participants who increase their time spent exercising will obtain much of this time by reducing their SB.

Download Full-text

The Impact of Shorter, More Frequent Outdoor Play Periods on Preschoolers’ Physical Activity during Childcare: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ◽

10.3390/ijerph16214126 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 16 (21) ◽

pp. 4126 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Molly Driediger ◽

Stephanie Truelove ◽

Andrew M. Johnson ◽

Leigh M. Vanderloo ◽

Brian W. Timmons ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Physical Activity ◽

Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Outdoor Play ◽

Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

Control Group ◽

Post Intervention ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Cluster Randomized ◽

The Impact

Children’s physical activity levels are higher at the start of outdoor playtime, which suggests that shorter, more frequent play periods might result in greater amounts of daily physical activity. In this extension of the Supporting Physical Activity in the Childcare Environment (SPACE) cluster randomized controlled trial, we explored the impact of four 30-min daily outdoor unstructured play periods on preschoolers’ moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA). Experimental childcare centres (n = 6) implemented four 30-min daily outdoor playtimes for 8 weeks, while control centres (n = 6) maintained their two 60-min outdoor sessions. Actical™ accelerometers were used to measure preschoolers’ physical activity pre- and post-intervention for 5 days during childcare hours. Linear mixed effects models were used to determine the impact of the intervention on preschoolers’ MVPA. Of the 185 preschoolers enrolled (54.20% female; mean age = 39.90 months, SD = 7.24), 127 (65 experimental and 62 control) were included in the analysis (30% and 9% loss to follow-up for experimental and control group preschoolers, respectively). No significant differences in MVPA were observed between groups over time (p = 0.36). Preschoolers’ MVPA did not improve after the introduction of shorter outdoor play periods. The loss of data due to wear time noncompliance and participant attrition may have influenced these findings. Trial registration: ISRCTN70604107 (October 8, 2014).

Download Full-text

Associations of Lifestyle Intervention Effect with Blood Pressure and Physical Activity among Community-Dwelling Older Americans with Hypertension in Southern California

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ◽

10.3390/ijerph17165673 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 17 (16) ◽

pp. 5673

Author(s):

Mei-Lan Chen ◽

Jie Hu ◽

Thomas P. McCoy ◽

Susan Letvak ◽

Luba Ivanov

Keyword(s):

Physical Activity ◽

Blood Pressure ◽

Older Adults ◽

Lifestyle Intervention ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Community Dwelling ◽

Future Research ◽

Control Group ◽

Intervention Effects

A healthy lifestyle and regular physical activity are highly recommended for older adults. However, there has been limited research into testing lifestyle intervention effects on physical activity in older adults with hypertension. The purpose of this study was to assess the association of lifestyle intervention effects with physical activity and blood pressure in older adults with hypertension, accounting for social support and perceived stress as control variables. This study performed a secondary analysis of a two-arm randomized controlled trial. A total of 196 participants were randomly assigned to a six-month lifestyle intervention group or a control group. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses demonstrated that lifestyle intervention effects were not significantly associated with improvements in physical activity and blood pressure, but the final regression models were statistically significant (all p < 0.001). The result revealed that only physical activity frequency at baseline was significantly related to improvement in physical activity. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) at baseline and monthly income were significantly associated with change in SBP, while age and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at baseline were significantly related to change in DBP. The findings provide empirical evidence for developing and optimizing lifestyle interventions for future research and clinical practice in this population.

Download Full-text