The effectiveness of a web 2.0 physical activity intervention in older adults - a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Interactive web-based physical activity interventions using Web 2.0 features (e.g., social networking) have the potential to improve engagement and effectiveness compared to static Web 1.0 interventions. However, older adults may engage with Web 2.0 interventions differently than younger adults. The aims of this study were to determine whether an interaction between intervention (Web 2.0 and Web 1.0) and age group (<55y and ≥55y) exists for website usage and to determine whether an interaction between intervention (Web 2.0, Web 1.0 and logbook) and age group (<55y and ≥55y) exists for intervention effectiveness (changes in physical activity). METHODS: As part of the WALK 2.0 trial, 504 Australian adults were randomly assigned to receive either a paper logbook (n = 171), a Web 1.0 (n = 165) or a Web 2.0 (n = 168) physical activity intervention. Moderate to vigorous physical activity was measured using ActiGraph monitors at baseline 3, 12 and 18 months. Website usage statistics including time on site, number of log-ins and number of step entries were also recorded. Generalised linear and intention-to-treat linear mixed models were used to test interactions between intervention and age groups (<55y and ≥55y) for website usage and moderate to vigorous physical activity changes. RESULTS: Time on site was higher for the Web 2.0 compared to the Web 1.0 intervention from baseline to 3 months, and this difference was significantly greater in the older group (OR = 1.47, 95%CI = 1.01-2.14, p = .047). Participants in the Web 2.0 group increased their activity more than the logbook group at 3 months, and this difference was significantly greater in the older group (moderate to vigorous physical activity adjusted mean difference = 13.74, 95%CI = 1.08-26.40 min per day, p = .03). No intervention by age interactions were observed for Web 1.0 and logbook groups. CONCLUSIONS: Results partially support the use of Web 2.0 features to improve adults over 55 s' engagement in and behaviour changes from web-based physical activity interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN ACTRN12611000157976 , Registered 7 March 2011.

Recruitment, screening, and baseline participant characteristics in the WALK 2.0 study: A randomized controlled trial using web 2.0 applications to promote physical activity.

OBJECTIVE: To describe in detail the recruitment methods and enrollment rates, the screening methods, and the baseline characteristics of a sample of adults participating in the Walk 2.0 Study, an 18 month, 3-arm randomized controlled trial of a Web 2.0 based physical activity intervention. METHODS: A two-fold recruitment plan was developed and implemented, including a direct mail-out to an extract from the Australian Electoral Commission electoral roll, and other supplementary methods including email and telephone. Physical activity screening involved two steps: a validated single-item self-report instrument and the follow-up Active Australia Questionnaire. Readiness for physical activity participation was also based on a two-step process of administering the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire and, where needed, further clearance from a medical practitioner. RESULTS: Across all recruitment methods, a total of 1244 participants expressed interest in participating, of which 656 were deemed eligible. Of these, 504 were later enrolled in the Walk 2.0 trial (77% enrollment rate) and randomized to the Walk 1.0 group (n = 165), the Walk 2.0 group (n = 168), or the Logbook group (n = 171). Mean age of the total sample was 50.8 years, with 65.2% female and 79.1% born in Australia. CONCLUSION: The results of this recruitment process demonstrate the successful use of multiple strategies to obtain a diverse sample of adults eligible to take part in a web-based physical activity promotion intervention. The use of dual screening processes ensured safe participation in the intervention. This approach to recruitment and physical activity screening can be used as a model for further trials in this area.

Physical activity screening to recruit inactive randomized controlled trial participants: how much is too much?

UNLABELLED: Screening physical activity levels is common in trials to increase physical activity in inactive populations. Commonly applied single-item screening tools might not always be effective in identifying those who are inactive. We applied the more extensive Active Australia Survey to identify inactive people among those who had initially been misclassified as too active using a single-item measure. Those enrolled after the Active Australia Survey screening had significantly higher physical activity levels at subsequent baseline assessment. Thus, more extensive screening measures might result in the inclusion of participants who would otherwise be excluded, possibly introducing unwanted bias. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12611000157976.