Predictors of Increased Physical Activity in Patients Receiving Physical Activity on Prescription

April 14, 2020 updated by: Stefan Lundqvist, Vastra Gotaland Region

Which Primary Care Patients Benefit From Physical Activity on Prescription? An Analysis of Factors Predicting Increased Physical Activity

The aim of this study is to explore possible predicting factors associated with physical activity (PA) level change in a 6-month period of physical activity on prescription (PAP) treatment. This is done in order to highlight potential predictors important for increased PA-level and to identify which primary care patients who may benefit from the PAP-intervention.

Four hundred forty four patients are included in the study, 27-85 years, physically inactive, having at least one component of the metabolic syndrome (MetS) present and receiving PAP-treatment. Possible predicting factors of PA change at baseline and PA-level at 6-month follow-up are analyzed.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Aim:

To explore possible predicting factors associated with PA-level change in a 6-month period of PAP-treatment. This is done in order to highlight potential predictors important for increased PA-level and to identify which primary care patients who may benefit from the PAP-intervention.

Methods:

Study design:

This is a longitudinal prospective observational cohort study with a 6-month follow-up of PAP-treatment. The treatment is carried out as part of a daily clinical primary care practice.

Study population:

The 444 patients included in the study, are selected from 15 primary health care centres in Gothenburg, Sweden, and are 27-85 years, physically inactive, having at least one component of the MetS present and receiving PAP-treatment. The patients have to understand the Swedish language to fill in the questionnaires.

Intervention:

The PAP-treatment is offered by authorized personnel, educated in PA-effects and PAP-intervention and consists of an individual-based dialogue with the patient, an individually tailored recommendation of PA including a written prescription, and customized, structured support during 6 months. The patients health status, previous respectively current PA level, preferences for different physical activities, motivation, self-efficacy and readiness to change PA behavior are evaluated. An agreed individually dosed PA is written down and the support during the 6-month intervention is individually structured either by revisits or by telephone contacts.

Measurements:

The following measurements are conducted at baseline and the 6-month follow-up: PA-level, self-efficacy expectations, outcome expectations, enjoyment, social support, readiness to change PA, body mass index (BMI), and health related quality of life. Age, sex, social situation, economy, education, and smoking is also measured.

Statistical analysis:

A per-protocol analysis is used. In the predictor analysis, Spearman rank correlation and a univariate regression analysis is used, respectively, to examine the association between possible predicting factors at baseline and PA level at 6-month follow-up. Significant predictors from the regression analysis are dichotomized into positive and negative values, respectively, and a Chi-square test for independence is used in analysing the predictors at baseline to increased PA level at 6-month follow-up. Statistical significance is set at p ≤0.05.

Hypothesis:

It is possible finding predicting factors among the patient´s answers according to self-reported questionnaires for the purpose of identifying responders/non-responders to increased physical activity level at 6 month follow-up of PAP-treatment.

Clinical implication:

Highlighting possible predicting factors to increased PA in an early stage of PAP-intervention, offers the opportunity to support the patient in the behavioural change process and to individualize the PAP-treatment, with the aim to increase physical activity level.

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Actual)

444

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Sweden
    • Region Västra Götaland
      • Gothenburg, Region Västra Götaland, Sweden, 421 44
        • Närhälsan Göteborg centrum för fysisk aktivitet

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

27 years to 85 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

The 444 patients included in the study, are selected from 15 primary health care centres in Gothenburg, Sweden and are 27-85 years, physically inactive, having at least one component of the MetS present and receiving PAP-treatment. The patients have to understand the Swedish language to fill in the questionnaires.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Physically inactive according to ACSM/AHA public health recommendation from 2007.
  • Having at least one component of the metS present according to the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) classification.
  • Receiving PAP-treatment.
  • Understanding the Swedish language.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • The patient decline to participate.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change in self-assessed PA-level according to the public health recommendation.
Time Frame: Change between baseline and 6-month follow-up. Association between PA-level at 6-month follow-up and baseline value of secondary outcome.
Self-assessment of PA-level according to American college of sports medicine (ACSM) and American heart association (AHA) public health recommendation 2007. The patient responds to two PA questions, where 30 minutes of moderate-intensity PA per day results in 1 point and 20 minutes of more vigorous-intensity PA per day results in 1.7 point during each specific day of the week. A value of <5 points indicates an inadequate PA level.
Change between baseline and 6-month follow-up. Association between PA-level at 6-month follow-up and baseline value of secondary outcome.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Self-efficacy expectations - Self-Efficacy for Exercise Scale (SEE)
Time Frame: Association between baseline value of secondary outcome and 6-month value of primary outcome.
Questionnaire focusing on the ability to exercise for 20 minutes, three times per week in the face of barriers to exercise. The questionnaire is culturally adopted, translated into Swedish, and includes nine items (e.g. "The weather was bothering you", "You had to exercise alone", "You felt depressed"), rated on an ordinal 10 point scale ranging from 1 (Not confident) to 10 (Very confident). The item scores are summarized and divided by the number of responses indicating the strength of self-efficacy expectations. The SEE has been tested for older adults and older women post-hip fracture displaying high internal consistency, acceptable reliability measured with squared multiple correlation coefficients and sufficient to strong evidence for construct- and criterion validity.
Association between baseline value of secondary outcome and 6-month value of primary outcome.
Outcome expectations - Outcome Expectations for Exercise-2 Scale (OEE-2)
Time Frame: Association between baseline value of secondary outcome and 6-month value of primary outcome.
A 13-item measure with 9 positive worded items (e.g. "Helps me feel less tired") and 4 negatively worded items (e.g. "Is something I avoid because it causes me to be short of breath") divided into two subscales: positive OEE and negative OEE. The items are rated on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree). The negative OEE items are reversed scored and the numerical ratings for each response are summarized and divided by the number of items. The OEE-2 questionnaire was revised in year 2005 to include 4 items concerning negative expectations with exercise based on qualitative findings and has shown some evidence for convergent validity, internal consistency and person-, item reliability.
Association between baseline value of secondary outcome and 6-month value of primary outcome.
Enjoyment - Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES)
Time Frame: Association between baseline value of secondary outcome and 6-month value of primary outcome.
Consists of 16 items whereof 9 positively worded (e.g." I think it´s fun", "It gives me energy", "It is very pleasant") and 7 negatively worded (e.g. "I feel bored", "I don´t like it", "It´s frustrating for me"). Each item is rated on a 5 point Likert scale from 1 (Does not apply at all) to 5 (Truly applies), the negatively worded items are reversed scored and the responses are added to a score ranging from 16 to 80. The PACES has been tested for 18-24 year old students and adults with functional limitations showing acceptable test-retest reliability, internal consistency and criterion validity correlated to physical function.
Association between baseline value of secondary outcome and 6-month value of primary outcome.
Social support - Social support for exercise scale (SSES)
Time Frame: Association between baseline value of secondary outcome and 6-month value of primary outcome.
Including 13 items, divided in a family and friends part and measured on a 5 point Likert scale. Eleven items are positively worded (participation and involvement) and two items negatively (rewards and punishments) describing social interactions possibly linked to exercise behaviour during the previous three months. Responses were ranged from 1 (none) to 5 (very often) and "not applicable" was given a score of 1. The item scores are summarized in three subgroups: Family support - positive, Friend support - positive and Family support - negative. The Friend support - negative subgroup scores were excluded by Sallis et al. because it did not emerge in the factor analysis. The SSES has shown acceptable test-retest reliability, high internal consistency and significant criterion validity correlated with a vigorous exercise measure.
Association between baseline value of secondary outcome and 6-month value of primary outcome.
The readiness to change PA level
Time Frame: Association between baseline value of secondary outcome and 6-month value of primary outcome.
Measured at baseline including three questions estimated on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS): How prepared are you? How important is it for you? How confident are you to succeed (self-efficacy)? The VAS line is anchored in each ends with words describing the minimal respectively maximal extremes of the dimension being measured. The questions derives from MI and behaviour change counselling according to Rollnick et al where a higher value on the VAS indicates increased readiness to change. VAS has been used in the social and behavior sciences both as a research and clinical tool and is considered to have acceptable reliability and validity.
Association between baseline value of secondary outcome and 6-month value of primary outcome.
Body mass index - BMI
Time Frame: Association between baseline value of secondary outcome and 6-month value of primary outcome.
Calculated (kg/m2) from measured body weight, with light clothing and without shoes to the nearest 0.1 kg using an electric scale (Carl Lidén AFW D300, Jönköping, Sweden) and body height, measured in an upright position without shoes to the nearest 0.5 cm using a scale fixed to the wall (PEM 136, Hultafors, Sweden).
Association between baseline value of secondary outcome and 6-month value of primary outcome.
Health related quality of life - the Swedish version of the Short Form 36 (SF-36 Standard Swedish Version 1.0)
Time Frame: Association between baseline value of secondary outcome and 6-month value of primary outcome.
Includes 36 questions and generates eight health concepts: physical functioning (PF), role physical functioning (RP), bodily pain (BP), general health (GH), vitality (VT), social function (SF), role emotional functioning (RE) and mental health (MH). The health concepts are converted to 0-100 points where higher values represents a better health-related quality of life. The different health concepts of SF-36 are also grouped into a physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) respectively. SF-36 has shown good to excellent internal consistency reliability and is validated in a representative sample of Swedish population.
Association between baseline value of secondary outcome and 6-month value of primary outcome.
Socio demographic data.
Time Frame: Association between baseline value of secondary outcome and 6-month value of primary outcome.
Age (years), sex (female-male), social situation (single-married/cohabit-other), economy (good-neither nor-bad), education (elementary grade-upper secondary school-university college) and smoking (yes-previous-no) were also measured.
Association between baseline value of secondary outcome and 6-month value of primary outcome.

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Vastra Gotaland Region

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Åsa Cider, PhD, Department of Health and Rehabilitation, Unit of Physiotherapy, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, , Gothenburg, Sweden

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

January 1, 2010

Primary Completion (Actual)

August 1, 2014

Study Completion (Actual)

May 2, 2019

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

July 2, 2018

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

July 2, 2018

First Posted (Actual)

July 13, 2018

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

April 15, 2020

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 14, 2020

Last Verified

June 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • Predictor study 206151

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

YES

IPD Plan Description

Unidentifiable patient data for all primary and secondary outcome measures will be made available in a source data file (XLSX) in published article.

IPD Sharing Time Frame

A source data file will be available in section "Supporting information" in published article.

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Physical Activity

Clinical Trials on Predicting factors for increased physical activity

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Portugal

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

3
Subscribe