Strategies supporting parent-delivered rehabilitation exercises to improve motor function after paediatric traumatic brain injury: A systematic review.

AIM: To identify and analyse ways in which parents are supported to deliver rehabilitation exercises to their child after traumatic brain injury (TBI), conceptualized as strategies. METHOD: A systematic search was completed using seven online databases and three grey literature databases, from inception to November 2021. The included studies focused on physical rehabilitation in children after TBI with the involvement of parents as hands-on deliverers or facilitators of rehabilitation (e.g. supervising the exercise). Intervention descriptions were reviewed to identify strategies; this was followed by fine-grained analysis using the Behaviour Change Wheel to identify intervention components. Risk of bias was analysed using the revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomized Trials or the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions. RESULTS: Six interventions including 211 participants and one trial protocol met the inclusion criteria. All studies included a proportion of children diagnosed with TBI and four studies included mixed samples of acquired brain injury or cerebral palsy. All interventions included elements of goal setting and instruction. INTERPRETATION: Interventions focus heavily on the initiation of physical rehabilitation, but focus less on the longer-term maintenance of rehabilitation delivery. Further research should integrate perspectives from parents to inform the development of new interventions.

A qualitative study to understand people's experiences of living with Charcot neuroarthropathy.

AIMS: Charcot neuroarthropathy (CN) is a complication of neuropathy, in people with diabetes. Treatment requires the prolonged wearing of an offloading device, which can be challenging. The importance of understanding people's perspectives for promoting their engagement in self management is well known. However, no such studies have been done in CN. This qualitative study aimed to understand people's experiences of CN. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 14 participants with CN, recruited from a randomised controlled trial. We gathered opinions, thoughts and the meanings participants attributed to their experiences of CN and its physical, socio-economic and physiological effects and how this affected their families and relationships. We analysed the interviews using Inductive Thematic Analysis. RESULTS: Four analytic themes were identified: (1) 'Trapped at home isolated and missing social life and daily life routines'; (2) 'Disruption to people's roles, responsibilities, relationships and mobility, which people adapted to try and address and manage'; (3) 'Pain which participants related to the direct or indirect consequences of wearing the cast or boot'; and (4) 'Blame for developing CN, attributed to themselves and healthcare professionals'. Participants described guilt about needing more support, expressing frustration, low mood and low self-esteem. CONCLUSION: This study highlights experiential aspects of the previously unrecognised burden of CN. Its physical, social and emotional impacts on participants and their families are substantial and sustained. There is a need to raise clinical awareness of CN and its wider effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN74101606. Registered on 6 November 2017, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN74101606?q=CADom&filters=&sort=&offset=1&totalResults=1&page=1&pageSize=10&searchType=basic-search.

Promoting physical activity in a multi-ethnic population at high risk of diabetes: the 48-month PROPELS randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity is associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease but limited evidence exists for the sustained promotion of increased physical activity within diabetes prevention trials. The aim of the study was to investigate the long-term effectiveness of the Walking Away programme, an established group-based behavioural physical activity intervention with pedometer use, when delivered alone or with a supporting mHealth intervention. METHODS: Those at risk of diabetes (nondiabetic hyperglycaemia) were recruited from primary care, 2013-2015, and randomised to (1) Control (information leaflet); (2) Walking Away (WA), a structured group education session followed by annual group-based support; or (3) Walking Away Plus (WAP), comprising WA annual group-based support and an mHealth intervention delivering tailored text messages supported by telephone calls. Follow-up was conducted at 12 and 48 months. The primary outcome was accelerometer measured ambulatory activity (steps/day). Change in primary outcome was analysed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for baseline, randomisation and stratification variables. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred sixty-six individuals were randomised (median age = 61 years, ambulatory activity = 6638 steps/day, women = 49%, ethnic minorities = 28%). Accelerometer data were available for 1017 (74%) individuals at 12 months and 993 (73%) at 48 months. At 12 months, WAP increased their ambulatory activity by 547 (97.5% CI 211, 882) steps/day compared to control and were 1.61 (97.5% CI 1.05, 2.45) times more likely to achieve 150 min/week of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. Differences were not maintained at 48 months. WA was no different to control at 12 or 48 months. Secondary anthropometric and health outcomes were largely unaltered in both intervention groups apart from small reductions in body weight in WA (~ 1 kg) at 12- and 48-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Combining a pragmatic group-based intervention with text messaging and telephone support resulted in modest changes to physical activity at 12 months, but changes were not maintained at 48 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 83465245 (registered on 14 June 2012).

Exploring influences on evaluation practice: a case study of a national physical activity programme.

BACKGROUND: Interventions to improve physical activity behaviour are a core part of public health policy and practice. It is essential that we evaluate these interventions and use the evidence to inform decisions to improve population health. Evaluation of 'real-world' interventions provide an opportunity to generate practice-relevant evidence, however these interventions are difficult to evaluate. Various guidelines have been developed to facilitate evaluation, but evidence about their effectiveness in practice is limited. To explore influences on evaluation practice in an applied context, we conducted a case study of Sport England's 'Get Healthy Get Active' (GHGA) programme. This was a national programme that funded 33 projects that were delivered and evaluated across England. The programme was chosen as it was designed to generate evidence on the role of sport in increasing physical activity and improving health. The study aimed to explore and appraise whether strategies intended to facilitate project evaluation, including funder requirements to use a standardised evaluation framework and specific data collection methods, were effective in generating evidence that enabled the programme to meet its aims. METHODS: We applied a collective case study design involving 35 semi-structured interviews, and documentary analysis of multiple sources of evidence from 23 physical activity projects funded by GHGA. We applied thematic and framework analysis. We developed a logic model and mapped actual outcomes against intended outcomes. A narrative synthesis is provided. We discuss implications for the effective commissioning and evaluation of public health interventions. RESULTS: We identified five main themes of influences on evaluation practices that can act as barriers and facilitators to good practice: programme and project design; evaluation design; partnerships; resources; and organisational structures and systems. These influences are context-specific and operate through a complex set of interactions. CONCLUSION: Developing a better understanding of how influences on evaluation practice can act as facilitators or barriers is vital to help close current gaps in the evidence-based practice cycle. Critically, organisational structures and systems are needed to facilitate collaborative decision making; integration of projects and evaluation across partners organisations; transfer of knowldege and insights between stakeholders; and more rapid feedback and dissemination.

Evaluation of a very brief pedometer-based physical activity intervention delivered in NHS Health Checks in England: The VBI randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The majority of people do not achieve recommended levels of physical activity. There is a need for effective, scalable interventions to promote activity. Self-monitoring by pedometer is a potentially suitable strategy. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief (5-minute) pedometer-based intervention ('Step It Up') delivered as part of National Health Service (NHS) Health Checks in primary care. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The Very Brief Intervention (VBI) Trial was a two parallel-group, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 3-month follow-up, conducted in 23 primary care practices in the East of England. Participants were 1,007 healthy adults aged 40 to 74 years eligible for an NHS Health Check. They were randomly allocated (1:1) using a web-based tool between October 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, to either intervention (505) or control group (502), stratified by primary care practice. Participants were aware of study group allocation. Control participants received the NHS Health Check only. Intervention participants additionally received Step It Up: a 5-minute face-to-face discussion, written materials, pedometer, and step chart. The primary outcome was accelerometer-based physical activity volume at 3-month follow-up adjusted for sex, 5-year age group, and general practice. Secondary outcomes included time spent in different intensities of physical activity, self-reported physical activity, and economic measures. We conducted an in-depth fidelity assessment on a subsample of Health Check consultations. Participants' mean age was 56 years, two-thirds were female, they were predominantly white, and two-thirds were in paid employment. The primary outcome was available in 859 (85.3%) participants. There was no significant between-group difference in activity volume at 3 months (adjusted intervention effect 8.8 counts per minute [cpm]; 95% CI -18.7 to 36.3; p = 0.53). We found no significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes of step counts per day, time spent in moderate or vigorous activity, time spent in vigorous activity, and time spent in moderate-intensity activity (accelerometer-derived variables); as well as in total physical activity, home-based activity, work-based activity, leisure-based activity, commuting physical activity, and screen or TV time (self-reported physical activity variables). Of the 505 intervention participants, 491 (97%) received the Step it Up intervention. Analysis of 37 intervention consultations showed that 60% of Step it Up components were delivered faithfully. The intervention cost £18.04 per participant. Incremental cost to the NHS per 1,000-step increase per day was £96 and to society was £239. Adverse events were reported by 5 intervention participants (of which 2 were serious) and 5 control participants (of which 2 were serious). The study's limitations include a participation rate of 16% and low return of audiotapes by practices for fidelity assessment. CONCLUSIONS: In this large well-conducted trial, we found no evidence of effect of a plausible very brief pedometer intervention embedded in NHS Health Checks on objectively measured activity at 3-month follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN72691150).

Systematic review of techniques to monitor remission of acute Charcot neuroarthropathy in people with diabetes.

AIM: The management of acute Charcot neuroarthropathy relies on off-loading which is costly and time-consuming. Published studies have used monitoring techniques with unknown diagnostic precision to detect remission. We performed a systematic review of techniques for monitoring response to offloading in acute Charcot neuroarthropathy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included studies of off-loading which evaluated or described monitoring techniques in acute Charcot neuroarthropathy. PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were searched (January1993-July 2018). We extracted data from papers including study design, setting, population, monitoring techniques and treatment outcomes. We also extracted information on the cost, clinical applicability, sensitivity and specificity, safety and participant acceptability of the monitoring techniques. RESULTS: We screened 1205 titles, 140 abstracts and 45 full-texts, and included 29 studies. All studies were of low quality and at high risk of bias. In seven studies, the primary aim was to evaluate monitoring techniques: three evaluated magnetic resonance imaging, two thermography monitoring, one three-phase bone scanning and one Doppler spectrum analysis. The remaining 22 observational studies reported treatment outcomes and described the monitoring techniques used to assess the Charcot neuroarthropathy. Heterogeneity prevented the pooling of data. Very few studies included data on cost, clinical applicability, sensitivity and specificity, safety and patient acceptability of the monitoring techniques used. CONCLUSION: Multiple techniques have been used to evaluate remission in acute Charcot neuroathropathy but uncertainty remains about their effectiveness. We recommend further research into the influences of different monitoring techniques on treatment outcomes.

A systematic review of the use and reporting of evaluation frameworks within evaluations of physical activity interventions.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of physical activity interventions is vital to inform, and justify, evidence-based policy and practice to support population-wide changes in physical activity. Several evaluation frameworks and guidance documents have been developed to facilitate the evaluation and reporting of evaluation studies in public health. However, there is a lack of evidence about whether frameworks are being used to guide evaluation. There continues to be claims of poor and inconsistent reporting in evaluation studies. The aim of this review was to assess the use of evaluation frameworks and the quality of reporting of how they were applied within evaluation studies of physical activity interventions. OBJECTIVES: 1. To identify whether evaluation frameworks are reported to have been used within evaluation studies of physical activity interventions, and which frameworks have been used. 2. To appraise the quality of reporting with regards to how evaluation frameworks have been used. METHOD: We developed a checklist of indicators to enable a critical appraisal of the use and reporting of different evaluation frameworks in evaluation studies. We conducted a systematic search and review of evaluation studies published between 2015 and the date of the search to appraise the use and reporting of evaluation frameworks. A narrative synthesis is provided. RESULTS: The review identified 292 evaluation studies of physical activity interventions, only 69 (23%) of these mentioned using an evaluation framework, and only 16 different frameworks were referred to. There was variation in the quality of reporting of framework use. 51 (74%) studies were identified as being explicitly based on the stated framework, however only 26 (38%) provided detailed descriptions consistently across all the checklist indicators. Details of adaptations and limitations in how frameworks were applied were less frequently reported. The review also highlighted variability in the reporting of intervention components. More consistent and precise reporting of framework and intervention components is needed. CONCLUSION: Evaluation frameworks can facilitate a more systematic evaluation report and we argue their limited use suggests missed opportunities to apply frameworks to guide evaluation and reporting in evaluation studies. Variability in the quality of reporting of framework use limits the comparability and transferability of evidence. Where a framework has been used, the checklist of indicators can be employed to facilitate the reporting of an evaluation study and to review the quality of an evaluation report.

A scoping review of evaluation frameworks and their applicability to real-world physical activity and dietary change programme evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity and dietary change programmes play a central role in addressing public health priorities. Programme evaluation contributes to the evidence-base about these programmes; and helps justify and inform policy, programme and funding decisions. A range of evaluation frameworks have been published, but there is uncertainty about their usability and applicability to different programmes and evaluation objectives, and the extent to which they are appropriate for practitioner-led or researcher-led evaluation. This review appraises the frameworks that may be applicable to evaluation of physical activity and/or dietary change programmes, and develops a typology of the frameworks to help guide decision making by practitioners, commissioners and evaluators. METHODS: A scoping review approach was used. This included a systematic search and consultation with evaluation experts to identify evaluation frameworks and to develop a set of evaluation components to appraise them. Data related to each framework's general characteristics and components were extracted. This was used to construct a typology of the frameworks based on their intended programme type, evaluation objective and format. Each framework was then mapped against the evaluation components to generate an overview of the guidance included within each framework. RESULTS: The review identified 71 frameworks. These were described variously in terms of purpose, content, or applicability to different programme contexts. The mapping of frameworks highlighted areas of overlap and strengths and limitations in the available guidance. Gaps within the frameworks which may warrant further development included guidance on participatory approaches, non-health and unanticipated outcomes, wider contextual and implementation factors, and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Our typology and mapping signpost to frameworks where guidance on specific components can be found, where there is overlap, and where there are gaps in the guidance. Practitioners and evaluators can use these to identify, agree upon and apply appropriate frameworks. Researchers can use them to identify evaluation components where there is already guidance available and where further development may be useful. This should help focus research efforts where it is most needed and promote the uptake and use of evaluation frameworks in practice to improve the quality of evaluation and reporting.

A systematic review of just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) to promote physical activity.

BACKGROUND: Progress in mobile health (mHealth) technology has enabled the design of just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs). We define JITAIs as having three features: behavioural support that directly corresponds to a need in real-time; content or timing of support is adapted or tailored according to input collected by the system since support was initiated; support is system-triggered. We conducted a systematic review of JITAIs for physical activity to identify their features, feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness. METHODS: We searched Scopus, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, DBLP, ACM Digital Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and the ISRCTN register using terms related to physical activity, mHealth interventions and JITAIs. We included primary studies of any design reporting data about JITAIs, irrespective of population, age and setting. Outcomes included physical activity, engagement, uptake, feasibility and acceptability. Paper screening and data extraction were independently validated. Synthesis was narrative. We used the mHealth Evidence Reporting and Assessment checklist to assess quality of intervention descriptions. RESULTS: We screened 2200 titles, 840 abstracts, 169 full-text papers, and included 19 papers reporting 14 unique JITAIs, including six randomised studies. Five JITAIs targeted both physical activity and sedentary behaviour, five sedentary behaviour only, and four physical activity only. JITAIs prompted breaks following sedentary periods and/or suggested physical activities during opportunistic moments, typically over three to four weeks. Feasibility challenges related to the technology, sensor reliability and timeliness of just-in-time messages. Overall, participants found JITAIs acceptable. We found mixed evidence for intervention effects on behaviour, but no study was sufficiently powered to detect any effects. Common behaviour change techniques were goal setting (behaviour), prompts/cues, feedback on behaviour and action planning. Five studies reported a theory-base. We found lack of evidence about cost-effectiveness, uptake, reach, impact on health inequalities, and sustained engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Research into JITAIs to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour is in its early stages. Consistent use and a shared definition of the term 'JITAI' will aid evidence synthesis. We recommend robust evaluation of theory and evidence-based JITAIs in representative populations. Decision makers and health professionals need to be cautious in signposting patients to JITAIs until such evidence is available, although they are unlikely to cause health-related harm. REFERENCE: PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017070849.

Differences in objectively measured physical activity and sedentary behaviour between white Europeans and south Asians recruited from primary care: cross-sectional analysis of the PROPELS trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-reported data have consistently shown South Asians (SAs) to be less physically active than White Europeans (WEs) in developed countries, however objective data is lacking. Differences in sedentary time have not been elucidated in this population. This study aimed to quantify differences in objectively measured physical activity and sedentary behaviour between WEs and SAs recruited from primary care and to investigate differences in demographic and lifestyle correlates of these behaviours. METHODOLOGY: Baseline data were utilised from a randomised control trial recruiting individuals identified at high risk of type 2 diabetes from primary care. Light intensity physical activity, moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) and steps were measured using the Actigraph GT3X+, while sitting, standing and stepping time were measured using the activPAL3™. Devices were worn concurrently for seven days. Demographic (employment, sex, age, education, postcode) and behavioural (fruit and vegetable consumption, alcohol consumption, smoking status) characteristics were measured via self and interview administered questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 963 WE (age = 62 ± 8, female 51%) and 289 SA (age = 55 ± 11, female 43%) were included. Compared to WEs, SAs did less MVPA (24 vs 33 min/day, p = 0.001) and fewer steps (6404 vs 7405 per day, p ≤ 0.001), but sat less (516 vs 552 min/day, p ≤ 0.001) and stood more (328 vs 283 min/day, p ≤ 0.001). Ethnicity also modified the extent to which demographic and behavioural factors act as correlates of physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Differences between sex in levels of MVPA and sitting time were greater in SAs compared to WEs, with SA women undertaking the least amount of MVPA (19 min/day), the least sitting time (475 min/day) and most standing time (377 min/day) than any other group. Smoking and alcohol status also acted as stronger correlates of sitting time in SAs compared to WEs. In contrast, education level acted as a stronger correlate of physical activity in WEs compared to SAs. CONCLUSION: SAs were less active yet less sedentary than WEs, which demonstrates the need to tailor the behavioural targets of interventions in multi-ethnic communities. Common correlates of physical activity and sedentary behaviour also differed between ethnicities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN83465245 Trial registration date: 14/06/2012.

Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information Analysis of Brief Interventions to Promote Physical Activity in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Brief interventions (BIs) delivered in primary care have shown potential to increase physical activity levels and may be cost-effective, at least in the short-term, when compared with usual care. Nevertheless, there is limited evidence on their longer term costs and health benefits. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of BIs to promote physical activity in primary care and to guide future research priorities using value of information analysis. METHODS: A decision model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of three classes of BIs that have been used, or could be used, to promote physical activity in primary care: 1) pedometer interventions, 2) advice/counseling on physical activity, and (3) action planning interventions. Published risk equations and data from the available literature or routine data sources were used to inform model parameters. Uncertainty was investigated with probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and value of information analysis was conducted to estimate the value of undertaking further research. RESULTS: In the base-case, pedometer interventions yielded the highest expected net benefit at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. There was, however, a great deal of decision uncertainty: the expected value of perfect information surrounding the decision problem for the National Health Service Health Check population was estimated at £1.85 billion. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that the use of pedometer BIs is the most cost-effective strategy to promote physical activity in primary care, and that there is potential value in further research into the cost-effectiveness of brief (i.e., <30 minutes) and very brief (i.e., <5 minutes) pedometer interventions in this setting.

What do we know about brief interventions for physical activity that could be delivered in primary care consultations? A systematic review of reviews.

This systematic review of reviews aims to investigate how brief interventions (BIs) are defined, whether they increase physical activity, which factors influence their effectiveness, who they are effective for, and whether they are feasible and acceptable. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, DARE, HTA database, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index-Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network from their inception until May 2015 to identify systematic reviews of the effectiveness of BIs aimed at promoting physical activity in adults, reporting a physical activity outcome and at least one BI that could be delivered in a primary care setting. A narrative synthesis was conducted. We identified three specific BI reviews and thirteen general reviews of physical activity interventions that met the inclusion criteria. The BI reviews reported varying definitions of BIs, only one of which specified a maximum duration of 30min. BIs can increase self-reported physical activity in the short term, but there is insufficient evidence about their long-term impact, their impact on objectively measured physical activity, and about the factors that influence their effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability. Current definitions include BIs that are too long for primary care consultations. Practitioners, commissioners and policy makers should be aware of this when interpreting evidence about BIs, and future research should develop and evaluate very brief interventions (of 5min or less) that could be delivered in a primary care consultation.

A systematic review of the physical activity assessment tools used in primary care.

Background: Primary care is an ideal setting for physical activity interventions to prevent and manage common long-term conditions. To identify those who can benefit from such interventions and to deliver tailored support, primary care professionals (e.g. GPs, practice nurses, physiotherapists, health care assistants) need reliable and valid tools to assess physical activity. However, there is uncertainty about the best-performing tool. Objective: To identify the tools used in the literature to assess the physical activity in primary care and describe their psychometric properties. Method: A systematic review of published and unpublished literature was undertaken up to 1 December 2016). Papers detailing physical activity measures, tools or approaches used in primary care consultations were included. A synthesis of the frequency and context of their use, and their psychometric properties, was undertaken. Studies were appraised using the Downs and Black critical appraisal tool and the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) initiative checklist. Results: Fourteen papers reported 10 physical activity assessment tools. The General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ) was most frequently reported. None of the assessment tools identified showed high reliability and validity. Intra-rater reliability ranged from kappa: 0.53 [Brief Physical Activity Assessment Tool (BPAAT)] to 0.67 (GPPAQ). Criterion validity ranged from Pearson's rho: 0.26 (GPPAQ) to 0.52 (Physical Activity Vital Sign). Concurrent validity ranged from kappa: 0.24 (GPPAQ) to 0.64 (BPAAT). Conclusion: The evidence base about physical activity assessment in primary care is insufficient to inform current practice.

A randomised controlled trial of three very brief interventions for physical activity in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Very brief interventions (VBIs) for physical activity are promising, but there is uncertainty about their potential effectiveness and cost. We assessed potential efficacy, feasibility, acceptability, and cost of three VBIs in primary care, in order to select the most promising intervention for evaluation in a subsequent large-scale RCT. METHODS: Three hundred and ninety four adults aged 40-74 years were randomised to a Motivational (n = 83), Pedometer (n = 74), or Combined (n = 80) intervention, delivered immediately after a preventative health check in primary care, or control (Health Check only; n = 157). Potential efficacy was measured as the probability of a positive difference between an intervention arm and the control arm in mean physical activity, measured by accelerometry at 4 weeks. RESULTS: For the primary outcome the estimated effect sizes (95 % CI) relative to the Control arm for the Motivational, Pedometer and Combined arms were respectively: +20.3 (-45.0, +85.7), +23.5 (-51.3, +98.3), and -3.1 (-69.3, +63.1) counts per minute. There was a73% probability of a positive effect on physical activity for each of the Motivational and Pedometer VBIs relative to control, but only 46 % for the Combined VBI. Only the Pedometer VBI was deliverable within 5 min. All VBIs were acceptable and low cost. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the four criteria, the Pedometer VBI was selected for evaluation in a large-scale trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN02863077 . Retrospectively registered 05/10/2012.

Are brief interventions to increase physical activity cost-effective? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether brief interventions promoting physical activity are cost-effective in primary care or community settings. DESIGN: Systematic review of economic evaluations. METHODS AND DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EconLit, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, the Cochrane library, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry up to 20 August 2014. Web of Knowledge was used for cross-reference search. We included studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of brief interventions, as defined by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, promoting physical activity in primary care or the community. Methodological quality was assessed using Drummond's checklist for economic evaluations. Data were extracted from individual studies fulfilling selection criteria using a standardised pro forma. Comparisons of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios were made between studies. RESULTS: Of 1840 identified publications, 13 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria describing 14 brief interventions. Studies varied widely in the methods used, such as the perspective of economic analysis, intervention effects and outcome measures. The incremental cost of moving an inactive person to an active state, estimated for eight studies, ranged from £96 to £986. The cost-utility was estimated in nine studies compared with usual care and varied from £57 to £14 002 per quality-adjusted life year; dominant to £6500 per disability-adjusted life year; and £15 873 per life years gained. CONCLUSIONS: Brief interventions promoting physical activity in primary care and the community are likely to be inexpensive compared with usual care. Given the commonly accepted thresholds, they appear to be cost-effective on the whole, although there is notable variation between studies.

Reliability of Identification of Behavior Change Techniques in Intervention Descriptions.

PURPOSE: The aim of this paper is to assess the frequency of identification as well as the inter-coder and test-retest reliability of identification of behavior change techniques (BCTs) in written intervention descriptions. METHODS: Forty trained coders applied the "Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy version 1" (BCTTv1) to 40 intervention descriptions published in protocols and repeated this 1 month later. RESULTS: Eighty of 93 defined BCTs were identified by at least one trained coder, and 22 BCTs were identified in 16 (40 %) or more of 40 descriptions. Good inter-coder reliability was observed across 80 BCTs identified in the protocols: 66 (80 %) achieved mean prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) scores of 0.70 or greater, and 59 (74 %) achieved mean scores of 0.80 or greater. There was good within-coder agreement between baseline and 1 month, demonstrating good test-retest reliability. CONCLUSIONS: BCTTv1 can be used by trained coders to identify BCTs in intervention descriptions reliably. However, some frequently occurring BCT definitions require further clarification.

Which behavior change techniques are associated with changes in physical activity, diet and body mass index in people with recently diagnosed diabetes?

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses have identified promising behavior change techniques (BCTs) in changing obesity-related behaviors from intervention descriptions. However, it is unclear whether these BCTs are used by intervention participants and are related to outcomes. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to investigate BCT use by participants of an intervention targeting physical activity and diet and whether BCT use was related to behavior change and weight loss. METHODS: Intervention participants (N = 239; 40-69 years) with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes in the ADDITION-Plus trial received a theory-based intervention which taught them a range of BCTs. BCT usage was reported at 1 year. RESULTS: Thirty-six percent of the participants reported using all 16 intervention BCTs. Use of a higher number of BCTs and specific BCTs (e.g., goal setting) were associated with a reduction in body mass index (BMI). CONCLUSIONS: BCT use was associated with weight loss. Future research should identify strategies to promote BCT use in daily life. ( TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN99175498.).

Development and feasibility study of very brief interventions for physical activity in primary care.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in brief and very brief behaviour change interventions for physical activity as they are potentially scalable to the population level. However, few very brief interventions (VBIs) have been published, and evidence is lacking about their feasibility, acceptability and which 'active ingredients' (behaviour change techniques) would maximise their effectiveness. The aim of this research was to identify and develop promising VBIs for physical activity and test their feasibility and acceptability in the context of preventive health checks in primary care. METHODS: The process included two stages, guided by four criteria: effectiveness, feasibility, acceptability, and cost. In Stage 1, we used an iterative approach informed by systematic reviews, a scoping review of BCTs, team discussion, stakeholder consultation, a qualitative study, and cost estimation to guide the development of promising VBIs. In Stage 2, a feasibility study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of the short-listed VBIs, using tape-recordings and interviews with practitioners (n = 4) and patients (n = 68), to decide which VBIs merited further evaluation in a pilot trial. RESULTS: Four VBIs were short-listed: Motivational intervention; Action Planning intervention; Pedometer intervention; and Physical Activity Diary intervention. All were deliverable in around five minutes and were feasible and acceptable to participants and practitioners. Based on the results of interviews with practitioners and patients, techniques from the VBIs were combined into three new VBIs for further evaluation in a pilot trial. CONCLUSIONS: Using a two-stage approach, in which we considered the practicability of VBIs (acceptability, feasibility and cost) alongside potential efficacy from the outset, we developed a short-list of four promising VBIs for physical activity and demonstrated that they were acceptable and feasible as part of a preventive health check in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN02863077. Registered 5 October 2012.

Erratum to: Development and feasibility study of very brief interventions for physical activity in primary care.

Upon publication of this article [1] it has been noted that due to a technical error the publisher missed to include the Open Access Licence statement in the copyright line. The correct copyright line should have read: © 2015 Pears et al. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Multiple behaviour change intervention and outcomes in recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes: the ADDITION-Plus randomised controlled trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to assess whether or not a theory-based behaviour change intervention delivered by trained and quality-assured lifestyle facilitators can achieve and maintain improvements in physical activity, dietary change, medication adherence and smoking cessation in people with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes. METHODS: An explanatory randomised controlled trial was conducted in 34 general practices in Eastern England (Anglo-Danish-Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment in People with Screen Detected Diabetes in Primary Care-Plus [ADDITION-Plus]). In all, 478 patients meeting eligibility criteria (age 40 to 69 years with recently diagnosed screen or clinically detected diabetes) were individually randomised to receive either intensive treatment (n = 239) or intensive treatment plus a theory-based behaviour change intervention led by a facilitator external to the general practice team (n = 239). Randomisation was central and independent using a partial minimisation procedure to balance stratifiers between treatment arms. Facilitators taught patients skills to facilitate change in and maintenance of key health behaviours, including goal setting, self-monitoring and building habits. Primary outcomes included physical activity energy expenditure (individually calibrated heart rate monitoring and movement sensing), change in objectively measured fruit and vegetable intake (plasma vitamin C), medication adherence (plasma drug levels) and smoking status (plasma cotinine levels) at 1 year. Measurements, data entry and laboratory analysis were conducted with staff unaware of participants' study group allocation. RESULTS: Of 475 participants still alive, 444 (93%; intervention group 95%, comparison group 92%) attended 1-year follow-up. There were no significant differences between groups in physical activity (difference: +1.50 kJ kg(-1) day(-1); 95% CI -1.74, 4.74), plasma vitamin C (difference: -3.84 µmol/l; 95% CI -8.07, 0.38), smoking (OR 1.37; 95% CI 0.77, 2.43) and plasma drug levels (difference in metformin levels: -119.5 µmol/l; 95% CI -335.0, 95.9). Cardiovascular risk factors and self-reported behaviour improved in both groups with no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: For patients with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes receiving intensive treatment in UK primary care, a facilitator-led individually tailored behaviour change intervention did not improve objectively measured health behaviours or cardiovascular risk factors over 1 year. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN99175498 FUNDING: The trial is supported by the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, National Health Service R&D support funding (including the Primary Care Research and Diabetes Research Networks) and National Institute of Health Research under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme. The Primary Care Unit is supported by NIHR Research funds. Bio-Rad provided equipment for HbA1c testing during the screening phase.