Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33612170›Full record

Trial reportAmerican journal of preventive medicine2021

Effectiveness of Minimal Contact Interventions: An RCT.

Samantha Hajna, Stephen J Sharp, Andrew J M Cooper, Kate M Williams, Esther M F van Sluijs, Soren Brage, Simon J Griffin, Stephen Sutton

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in American journal of preventive medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Samantha HajnaMRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Stephen J SharpMRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Andrew J M CooperMRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Kate M WilliamsPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Esther M F van SluijsMRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Soren BrageMRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Simon J GriffinMRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Electronic address: profgp@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Stephen SuttonPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
University of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00006/4Medical Research Council MC_UU_00006/5Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/3Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/4Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/7
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAround 23% of adults worldwide are insufficiently active. Wearable devices paired with virtual coaching software could increase physical activity. The effectiveness of 3 minimal contact interventions (paper-based physical activity diaries, activity trackers, and activity trackers coupled with virtual coaching) in increasing physical activity energy expenditure and cardiorespiratory fitness were compared over 12 weeks among inactive adults.

methodsThis was an open label, parallel-group RCT. Inactive adults (aged ≥18 years, N=488) were randomized to no intervention (Control; n=121), paper-based diary (Diary; n=124), activity tracker (Activity Band; n=122), or activity tracker plus virtual coaching (Activity Band PLUS; n=121) groups. Coprimary outcomes included 12-week changes in physical activity energy expenditure and fitness (May 2012-January 2014). Analyses were conducted in 2019-2020.

resultsThere were no differences between groups overall (physical activity energy expenditure: p=0.114, fitness: p=0.417). However, there was a greater increase in physical activity energy expenditure (4.21 kJ/kg/day, 95% CI=0.42, 8.00) in the Activity Band PLUS group than in the Diary group. There were also greater decreases in BMI and body fat percentage in the Activity Band PLUS group than in the Control group (BMI= -0.24 kg/m

conclusionsCoupling activity trackers with virtual coaching may facilitate increases in physical activity energy expenditure compared with a traditional paper‒based physical activity diary intervention and improve some secondary outcomes compared with a traditional paper‒based physical activity diary intervention or no intervention.

trial registrationThis study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov ISRCTN31844443.

Indexed as

Fitness TrackersMentoringAdolescentAdultEnergy MetabolismExerciseHumansSedentary Behavior

Identifiers

PMID33612170
PMCPMC7899959
OpenAlexW3131564665

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.