Efficacy and feasibility of HIIT training for university students: The Uni-HIIT RCT.

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the preliminary efficacy and feasibility of an 8-week high-intensity interval training program (Uni-HIIT) for young adult students in a university setting. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. METHOD: Uni-HIIT was conducted at the University of Newcastle, Australia (February-June, 2017). Participants were university students 18-25yrs (n=53; 20.38±1.88yrs) randomized into the Uni HIIT program (n=26) or wait-list control (n=27) condition. Participants were required to attend up to three HIIT sessions/week for 8-weeks which included a variety of aerobic and muscular fitness exercise combinations lasting 8-12minutes (using 30:30sec rest:work intervals). The primary outcome was cardio-respiratory fitness (CRF) (20mSRT), and secondary outcomes included muscular fitness (standing jump, push-ups), body composition (InBody), executive function (Trail Making Test), anxiety levels (State Trait Anxiety Inventory) and perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale). Linear mixed models were used to analyse outcomes and Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated. Process evaluation measures of recruitment, retention, attendance and satisfaction were conducted. RESULTS: A large significant group-by-time effect resulted for CRF [8.4 shuttles (95% CI(2.9-13.9), P=0.004,d=1.08] and muscular fitness [4.0 repetitions (95% CI(1.2-6.8), P=0.006,d=0.99], and moderate effect size was observed for Trail B [-5.9seconds (95% CI(-11.8-0.1.0), P=0.052, d=0.63]. No significant intervention effects were found for body composition, standing jump, anxiety or perceived stress (P >0.05). High ratings of participant satisfaction (4.73), enjoyment (4.54) and perceived value (4.54) were observed. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the efficacy and feasibility of delivering a novel HIIT program in the university setting.

Cost evaluation of providing evidence-based dietetic services for weight management in adults: In-person versus eHealth delivery.

AIM: To compare the theoretical costs of best-practice weight management delivered by dietitians in a traditional, in-person setting compared to remote consultations delivered using eHealth technologies. METHODS: Using national guidelines, a framework was developed outlining dietitian-delivered weight management for in-person and eHealth delivery modes. This framework mapped one-on-one patient-dietitian consultations for an adult requiring active management (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 ) over a one-year period using both delivery modes. Resources required for both the dietitian and patient to implement each treatment mode were identified, with costs attributed for material, fixed, travel and personnel components. The resource costs were categorised as either establishment or recurring costs associated with the treatment of one patient. RESULTS: Establishment costs were higher for eHealth compared to in-person costs ($1394.21 vs $90.05). Excluding establishment costs, the total (combined dietitian and patient) cost for one patient receiving best-practice weight management for 12 months was $560.59 for in-person delivery, compared to $389.78 for eHealth delivery. Compared to the eHealth mode, a higher proportion of the overall recurring delivery costs was attributed to the patient for the in-person mode (46.4% and 33.9%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although it is initially more expensive to establish an eHealth service mode, the overall reoccurring costs per patient for delivery of best-practice weight management were lower compared to the in-person mode. This theoretical cost evaluation establishes preliminary evidence to support alternative obesity management service models using eHealth technologies. Further research is required to determine the feasibility, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these models within dietetic practice.