- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT05678985
Evaluating Impact and Implementation of Choose to Move (Phase 4) (CTM)
Choose to Move (Phase 4): Impact and Implementation Evaluation of a Program to Enhance Older Adult Physical Activity, Mobility and Health
The objectives of this study are to: 1) evaluate whether Choose to Move (CTM) Phase 4 improves health outcomes in older adults who participate and 2) assess whether CTM Phase 4 is delivered as planned and what factors support or inhibit its delivery at scale.
CTM Phase 4 is a 3-month, choice-based program for low active older adults being scaled-up across British Columbia (BC), Canada. The goals of CTM are to enhance physical activity, mobility and social connectedness in older adults living in BC, Canada.
Study Overview
Status
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Choose to Move (CTM) Phase 4 is a 3-month, choice-based program for low active older adults being scaled-up in phases across British Columbia (BC), Canada. Within CTM (Phase 4), trained activity coaches support older adults in two ways. First, in a one-on-one consultation, activity coaches help participants to set goals and create action plans for physical activity tailored to each person's interests and abilities. Older adults can choose to participate in individual or group-based activities. Second, activity coaches facilitate 8 group meetings with small groups of participants. Activity coaches and recreation departments across BC are trained and provided with resources to deliver CTM.
Objectives:
- To assess the impact (effectiveness) of CTM (Phase 4) delivered at scale on the physical activity, mobility, and social connectedness of older adults (Part I - Impact Evaluation)
- To assess whether CTM (Phase 4) was implemented as planned (fidelity) and investigate factors that support or inhibit its implementation at scale (Part II - Implementation Evaluation).
Study Design:
The investigators use a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation (Curran et al 2012) pre-post study design to evaluate CTM. The investigators use multiple methods (quantitative and qualitative) and collect data at 0 (baseline), 3 (post-intervention), 6 (3 months post-intervention), 15 (12 months post-intervention) and 27 (24 months post-intervention) months to assess impact and implementation of CTM.
Study Type
Enrollment (Anticipated)
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
British Columbia
-
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V5Z 1M9
- Centre for Hip Health and Mobility, Robert H.N. Ho Research Centre, University of British Columbia
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria (older adults):
- ≥60 years of age
- demonstrate readiness for physical activity via the PAR-Q+ questionnaire, Get Active Questionnaire, or a letter of recommendation from their physician
- <150 min/week physical activity
- English speaking
- Able to connect to the Zoom or GoToMeeting platform via phone or internet in order to participate in virtual group meetings (for online programs only)
Exclusion Criteria (older adults):
- Previous participation in CTM
Inclusion Criteria (delivery partners):
- Activity coaches will be English speaking, British Columbia Recreation and Parks Association (BCRPA) registered older adult fitness leaders or kinesiologists who are delivering CTM at participating centres
- Recreation Managers and Coordinators affiliated with participating centres delivering CTM
- Provincial Partners (e.g., individuals/partners who make strategic and/or policy decisions) at partner organizations delivering Choose to Move
Activity Coach inclusion criteria:
- Able to connect to the Zoom or GoToMeeting platform via internet (video and audio required in order to see and hear participants) for online programs
- Able to connect to the Zoom or GoToMeeting platform via phone or internet in order to participate in virtual group meetings (for online programs only)
- Currently (or recently completed) participating in CTM evaluation
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Prevention
- Allocation: N/A
- Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
---|---|
Experimental: Choose to Move
CTM (Phase 4) is a 3-month, flexible, choice-based program for low active older adults that can be delivered in-person or online. CTM includes
|
As described under study arm description.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Change in physical activity
Time Frame: 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
The single item physical activity questionnaire will be used to measure physical activity.
Output variable is self-reported number of days/week ≥30 min physical activity in the past week (range 0-7).
|
0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Change in capacity for mobility
Time Frame: 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
Two items will assess participants' ability to walk a quarter of a mile and up 10 steps.
The output variable is self-reported presence of mobility-disability (no/any difficulty walking 400m or climbing one flight of stairs).
|
0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
Change in physical functioning
Time Frame: 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
The Physical Functioning Subscale of the SF-36 will be used to assess the physical function aspect of mobility.
The measure asks participants to rate if their health limits them in performing 10 different activities.
The output variable is an average score (range 0-100) of physical functioning, where a higher score indicates a more favourable health state.
|
0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
Change in mobility
Time Frame: 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
The Mobility Assessment Tool-Short Form (MAT-sf) will be used to assess mobility.
MAT-sf is a validated, short form video-animated tool to assess participant self-perception of mobility.
Only participants with an internet connection are able to complete this measure.
The output variable is a self-perception of mobility score (range 23.45-67.61)
where a higher score indicates greater perceived mobility.
|
0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
Change in loneliness
Time Frame: 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
The three-item loneliness scale will be used to assess loneliness.
Participants rate three aspects of loneliness.
The output variable is loneliness score (range 3-9); lower scores indicate lower levels of loneliness.
|
0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
Change in social isolation
Time Frame: 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
A three-item questionnaire adapted from two questions on social contact frequency will be used to assess social isolation.
The output variable is social isolation score (range 0-15); higher scores indicate lower levels of social isolation.
|
0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
Change in social network
Time Frame: 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
A six-item questionnaire will be used to assess social network.
The output variable is an equally weighted sum (range 0-30) where higher scores indicate more social engagement.
|
0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
Change in social connectedness
Time Frame: 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
A single item will be used to assess sense of belonging as an indicator of social connectedness.
The output variable is sense of belonging score (range 1-4) where lower scores indicate a stronger sense of belonging.
|
0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
Change in sitting time
Time Frame: 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
A five-item questionnaire will be used to assess change in sitting time (hours and minutes) each day in the following domains: (a) while travelling to and from places (e.g., work, shops); (b) while at work; (c) while watching television; (d) while using a computer at home; and (e) at leisure not including watching television (e.g., visiting friends, movies, eating out) on a weekday and a weekend day.
The output variables are sitting hours per day across 5 domains.
|
0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
Change in screen time
Time Frame: 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
A single item will be used to assess screen time.
The output variable is hours of screen time per day.
|
0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
Change in health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L Profile)
Time Frame: 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
Health status will be assessed using the EQ-5D-5L.
Participants report on mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression on a scale from 1-5 (level of perceived problems) for each item.
Responses are used to create a 5-digit number which will be used descriptively (11111 indicates no problems on any of the five dimensions whereas 55555 indicates extreme problems on all five dimensions).
|
0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
Change in health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L Level Sum Score)
Time Frame: 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
Health status (EQ-5D-5L Level Sum Score) will be assessed with the EQ-5D-5L.
Participants report on mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression on a scale from 1-5 (level of perceived problems) for each item.
The Level Sum Score uses the 5-digit profile to create a numeric score, with scores ranging from 5-25 (lower levels indicate lower levels of perceived problems).
|
0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
Change in health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L Visual Analogue Scale)
Time Frame: 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
Health status will be assessed with the EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale.
Participants report on their health on a visual analogue scale from 0 (worst health) to 100 (best health).
|
0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months
|
Other Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Reach-individual
Time Frame: 3-months
|
The number of participants engaged in the intervention will be obtained from program records.
|
3-months
|
Reach-organizational
Time Frame: 3-months
|
The number of organizations and activity coaches delivering the intervention will be obtained from program records.
|
3-months
|
Dose delivered
Time Frame: 3-months
|
The amount of intervention delivered will be assessed via survey (designed in house).
Lower scores indicate that a lower dose of the intervention was delivered than planned.
|
3-months
|
Fidelity (survey)
Time Frame: 3-months
|
Fidelity to planned delivery will be assessed via survey (designed in house).
Higher scores indicate better adherence to planned delivery.
|
3-months
|
Fidelity (interview/focus group)
Time Frame: 3-months
|
Fidelity to planned delivery will be assessed via interview/focus group.
|
3-months
|
Participant responsiveness (survey)
Time Frame: 3-months
|
Program satisfaction will be assessed via participant survey (designed in house).
Higher scores indicate higher participant satisfaction with the intervention.
|
3-months
|
Participant responsiveness (interview)
Time Frame: 3-months
|
Program satisfaction will be assessed via interview.
|
3-months
|
Adaptation (survey)
Time Frame: 3-months
|
Adaptation of the intervention and its delivery will be assessed via survey (designed in house).
|
3-months
|
Adaptation (interview/focus group)
Time Frame: 3-months
|
Adaptation of the intervention and its delivery will be assessed via interview/focus groups.
|
3-months
|
Contextual factors influencing implementation (survey)
Time Frame: 3-months
|
Contextual factors influencing implementation (community level factors, provider characteristics, characteristics of the innovation, the prevention delivery system, organizational capacity and the prevention support system) will be assessed via survey (designed in house).
|
3-months
|
Contextual factors influencing implementation (interview/focus group)
Time Frame: 3-months
|
Contextual factors influencing implementation (community level factors, provider characteristics, characteristics of the innovation, the prevention delivery system, organizational capacity and the prevention support system) will be assessed via interviews/focus groups.
|
3-months
|
Cost
Time Frame: 3-months
|
Program delivery costs will be recorded using a cost capture template.
|
3-months
|
Change in Organizational Readiness (Organizational Readiness Rubric)
Time Frame: 0, 3-months
|
Organizational readiness (OR) will be assessed via survey (Organizational Readiness Rubric; ORR).
The ORR comprises 14 items, each scored from 1-5.
Higher mean scores indicate greater organizational readiness.
|
0, 3-months
|
Change in Organizational Readiness (Readiness for Organizational Change Scale)
Time Frame: 0, 3-months
|
Organizational readiness (OR) will be assessed via survey (Readiness for Organizational Change Scale; ROCS).
ROCS includes 25 items, each scored on a 5-point scale (1= strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree).
Higher mean scores indicate greater organizational readiness for change.
|
0, 3-months
|
Organizational Readiness (OR) (interview/focus group)
Time Frame: 0, 3-months
|
Organizational readiness (OR) will be assessed via interview.
|
0, 3-months
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Heather A McKay, PhD, University of British Columbia
- Principal Investigator: Joanie Sims Gould, PhD, University of British Columbia
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- EuroQol Group. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9.
- Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012 Mar;50(3):217-26. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812.
- Hughes ME, Waite LJ, Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT. A Short Scale for Measuring Loneliness in Large Surveys: Results From Two Population-Based Studies. Res Aging. 2004;26(6):655-672. doi: 10.1177/0164027504268574.
- Lubben J, Blozik E, Gillmann G, Iliffe S, von Renteln Kruse W, Beck JC, Stuck AE. Performance of an abbreviated version of the Lubben Social Network Scale among three European community-dwelling older adult populations. Gerontologist. 2006 Aug;46(4):503-13. doi: 10.1093/geront/46.4.503.
- Lau, E. Y., Wandersman, A.H., & Pate, R. R. Factors Influencing Implementation of Youth Physical Activity Interventions: An Expert Perspective. Translational Journal of the ACSM: July 1, 2016 - Volume 1 - Issue 7 - p 60-70 doi: 10.1249/TJX.0000000000000006
- Marshall AL, Miller YD, Burton NW, Brown WJ. Measuring total and domain-specific sitting: a study of reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010 Jun;42(6):1094-102. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181c5ec18.
- Rejeski WJ, Rushing J, Guralnik JM, Ip EH, King AC, Manini TM, Marsh AP, McDermott MM, Fielding RA, Newman AB, Tudor-Locke C, Gill TM; LIFE Study Group. The MAT-sf: identifying risk for major mobility disability. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2015 May;70(5):641-6. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glv003. Epub 2015 Feb 13.
- Simonsick EM, Newman AB, Visser M, Goodpaster B, Kritchevsky SB, Rubin S, Nevitt MC, Harris TB; Health, Aging and Body Composition Study. Mobility limitation in self-described well-functioning older adults: importance of endurance walk testing. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2008 Aug;63(8):841-7. doi: 10.1093/gerona/63.8.841.
- Veroff, J., Kulka, R. A., & Douvan, E. A. M. (1981). Mental health in America: patterns of help-seeking from, 1957 to 1976: patterns of help-seeking from 1957 to 1976. Basic Books.
- Warburton, D. E., Jamnik, V. K., Bredin, S. S., & Gledhill, N. (2011). The physical activity readiness questionnaire for everyone (PAR-Q+) and electronic physical activity readiness medical examination (ePARmed-X+). The Health & Fitness Journal of Canada, 4(2), 3-17.
- Ware, J. E. (1989). SF-36 health status questionnaire. Boston, MA: Institute for the Improvement of Medical Care and Health, New England Medical Center Hospital, Quality Quest Inc.
- Milton K, Bull FC, Bauman A. Reliability and validity testing of a single-item physical activity measure. Br J Sports Med. 2011 Mar;45(3):203-8. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2009.068395. Epub 2010 May 19.
- Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A.A., Feild, H.S., & Harris, S.G. Readiness for Organizational Change: the systematic development of a scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 2007; 43(2): 232-255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886306295295
- Vancouver Coastal Health, Fraser Health, University of British Columbia. My Health My Community Survey. 2014. https://myhealthmycommunity.org/
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Primary Completion (Anticipated)
Study Completion (Anticipated)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Estimate)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Estimate)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
- H20-00780 (Other Identifier: University of British Columbia)
- PJT-169159 (Other Grant/Funding Number: Canadian Institutes of Health Research)
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
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 Aging
-
Tuba MadenCompletedAging | Aging Problems | Aging Disorder
-
Radboud University Medical CenterNot yet recruitingAging | Aging Well | Immuno Aging
-
University of Santiago de CompostelaEuropean Regional Development Fund; Center for Industrial Technological Development...Completed
-
TruDiagnosticBlushield USANot yet recruitingAging | Aging Well
-
San Diego State UniversityCompleted
-
Lithuanian Sports UniversityCompletedAging | Healthy AgingLithuania
-
University of West AtticaNot yet recruiting
-
University of Santiago de CompostelaAgencia Estatal de Investigación, SpainRecruiting
-
Beijing HospitalBGI-ShenzhenCompletedAging | Healthy Aging
-
Northumbria UniversityUniversity of East AngliaSuspendedSleep | Aging | Healthy AgingUnited Kingdom
Clinical Trials on Choose to Move
-
University of British ColumbiaCanadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); Active Aging SocietyCompletedAging | Loneliness | Mobility Limitation | Physical Inactivity | Social IsolationCanada
-
University of British ColumbiaCanadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); Public Health Agency of Canada... and other collaboratorsNot yet recruitingAging | Sedentary Behavior | Loneliness | Mobility Limitation | Physical Inactivity | Social IsolationCanada
-
University of British ColumbiaCanadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); Active Aging SocietyActive, not recruitingAging | Sedentary Behavior | Loneliness | Mobility Limitation | Social IsolationCanada
-
University Hospital, LinkoepingRecruiting
-
University of MiamiSociety of Critical Care MedicineCompletedCritical Illness | Intensive Care Unit SyndromeUnited States
-
Hospital Felix BulnesCompletedMechanical Ventilation Complication | Intensive Care Unit Syndrome | Intensive Care Unit Acquired Weakness | Intensive Care Unit Delirium | Intensive Care NeuropathyChile
-
Northwestern UniversityUniversity of Illinois at Chicago; Northeastern Illinois UniversityCompletedNicotine Dependence | Cigarette SmokingUnited States
-
Public Health Management CorporationDepartment of Health and Human ServicesCompletedPregnancy in AdolescenceUnited States
-
Marmara UniversityActive, not recruitingPhysical Activity | Screen Time | Child, PreschoolTurkey
-
The Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityGuangzhou First People's Hospital; Kowloon Hospital, Hong Kong; Tuen Mun Hospital and other collaboratorsCompletedStroke | Upper Extremity Hemiplegia