Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26416606›Full record

Trial reportThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2015

Effectiveness of a walking programme to support adults with intellectual disabilities to increase physical activity: walk well cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Craig A Melville, Fiona Mitchell, Kirsten Stalker, Lynsay Matthews, Alex McConnachie, Heather M Murray, Chris Melling, Nanette Mutrie

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors.

Craig A MelvilleUniversity of Glasgow, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, Academic Centre, Gartnavel Royal Hospital, 1055 Great Western Road, Glasgow, G12 0XH, UK. craig.melville@glasgow.ac.uk.
Fiona MitchellUniversity of Glasgow, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, Academic Centre, Gartnavel Royal Hospital, 1055 Great Western Road, Glasgow, G12 0XH, UK. Fiona.Mitchell@glasgow.ac.uk.
Kirsten StalkerSocial Work and Social Policy, Lord Hope Building, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, G4 OLT, UK. Kirsten.Stalker@strath.ac.uk.
Lynsay MatthewsMRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 200 Renfield St, Glasgow, G2 3QB, UK. Lynsay.Matthews@glasgow.ac.uk.
Alex McConnachieRobertson Centre for Biostatistics, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Boyd Orr Building, University Avenue Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK. Alex.McConnachie@glasgow.ac.uk.
Heather M MurrayRobertson Centre for Biostatistics, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Boyd Orr Building, University Avenue Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK. Heather.Murray@glasgow.ac.uk.
Chris MellingSocial Work Services, Glasgow City Council, 40 John Street, Glasgow, G1 1JL, UK. Chris.Melling@glasgow.gov.uk.
Nanette MutrieUniversity of Edinburgh, Physical Activity for Health Research Centre, St Leonard's Land, Holyrood Road, Edinburgh, EH8 8AQ, UK. Nannette.Mutrie@ed.ac.uk.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CZH/4/644Chief Scientist Office SPHSU14Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/14
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrograms to change health behaviours have been identified as one way to reduce health inequalities experienced by disadvantaged groups. The objective of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a behaviour change programme to increase walking and reduce sedentary behaviour of adults with intellectual disabilities.

methodsWe used a cluster randomised controlled design and recruited participants over 18 years old and not regularly involved in physical activity from intellectual disabilities community-based organisations. Assessments were carried out blind to allocation. Clusters of participants were randomly allocated to the Walk Well program or a 12-week waiting list control. Walk Well consisted of three face-to-face physical activity consultations incorporating behaviour change techniques, written resources for participants and carers, and an individualised, structured walking programme. The primary outcome measured with accelerometers was change in mean step count per day between baseline and 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included percentage time per day sedentary and in moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), body mass index (BMI), and subjective well being.

resultsOne hundred two participants in 50 clusters were randomised. 82 (80.4%) participants completed the primary outcome. 66.7% of participants lived in the most deprived quintile on the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. At baseline, participants walked 4780 (standard deviation 2432) steps per day, spent 65.5% (standard deviation 10.9) of time sedentary and 59% percent had a body mass in the obesity range. After the walking programme, the difference between mean counts of the Walk Well and control group was 69.5 steps per day [95% confidence interval (CI) -1054 to 1193.3]. There were no significant between group differences in percentage time sedentary 1.6% (95% CI -2.984 to 6.102), percentage time in MVPA 0.3% (95% CI -0.7 to 1.3), BMI -0.2 kg/m(2) (95% CI -0.8 to 0.4) or subjective well-being 0.3 (95% CI -0.9 to 1.5).

conclusionsThis is the first published trial of a walking program for adults with intellectual disabilities. Positively changing physical activity and sedentary behaviours may require more intensive programmes or upstream approaches to address the multiple social disadvantages experienced by adults with intellectual disabilities. Since participants spent the majority of their time sedentary, home-based programmes to reduce sitting time may be a viable health improvement approach.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN50494254.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorProgram EvaluationAdultBody Mass IndexCluster AnalysisFemaleHealth PromotionHumansIntellectual DisabilityMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareQuality of LifeReferral and ConsultationWalking

Identifiers

PMID26416606
PMCPMC4587575

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.