A qualitative exploration of participants' experiences of taking part in a walking programme: Perceived benefits, barriers, choices and use of intervention resources.

BACKGROUND: Adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) experience significant inequalities and tend to be more sedentary and less physically active than the wider population. Walking programmes are an effective way to increase physical activity (PA) but have not been used in studies involving adults with intellectual disabilities. METHOD: Nineteen adults with intellectual disabilities participated in semistructured interviews or focus groups exploring their experiences of taking part in a walking programme (Walk Well). Data were coded using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four overarching themes emerged: perceived benefits of taking part in the programme, perceived drawbacks/ barriers, walking choices and using the Walk Well resources. While there was not a significant increase in walking for all, the participants reported positive experiences of taking part in the programme. Self-monitoring proved difficult for some, particularly reading the daily step count recorded on the pedometer and writing it in the diary. Carers also played an important role in facilitating and preventing behaviour change in adults with intellectual disabilities. CONCLUSION: Additional barriers prevent many adults with intellectual disabilities from participating in PA. Capturing participant experiences provides important information for designing effective and equitable health improvement programmes.

Process evaluation of the Walk Well study: a cluster-randomised controlled trial of a community based walking programme for adults with intellectual disabilities.

BACKGROUND: Walking interventions can be effective in encouraging sedentary populations to become more active; however, limited research has explored the effectiveness of walking interventions for adults with intellectual disabilities. This process evaluation explored the delivery of a community based walking intervention for adults with intellectual disabilities. METHODS: Walk Well was a single-blind cluster randomised controlled trial of a 12-week physical activity consultation-led walking intervention. 102 participants were randomised to the Walk Well intervention or a waiting list control group. Participants in the intervention group received three physical activity consultations with a walking advisor at baseline, 6 & 12-weeks. They were encouraged to use a pedometer to set goals and monitor their daily step count. Primary outcome was change in daily step count at 12-weeks. Process evaluation measures included qualitative interviews with key stakeholders (n = 6) and quantifiable data collected as part of the intervention. Additional process data were extracted from a sub-set of qualitative interviews with participants and carers (n = 20). Data were analysed for process information related to context, recruitment and retention, reach, implementation, and fidelity. RESULTS: Walk Well was not effective in significantly increasing levels of physical activity. The process evaluation did, however, highlight several important areas for consideration in future studies, including: a successful recruitment and retention strategy reaching a representative sample of adults with intellectual disabilities in the community; feasible and (for most) enjoyable methods of engaging adults with intellectual disabilities in activities to support behaviour change; potential need for greater intervention duration and frequency of contact; advantages and disadvantages of using pedometers as a behaviour change tool; the need for strategies which engage carers in supporting participants; and the complex issue of 'freedom of choice' in relation to lifestyle behaviours and study participation. CONCLUSIONS: Walking interventions for adults with intellectual disabilities can be feasibly delivered in the community in relation to reach, recruitment, retention and intervention fidelity. More intensive intervention methods need to be explored as well as strategies to engage and motivate carers in their support of participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN50494254 (3(rd) April 2012).

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

BACKGROUND: Programs 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: One 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). CONCLUSIONS: This 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 REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN50494254.

Walk Well: a randomised controlled trial of a walking intervention for adults with intellectual disabilities: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Walking interventions have been shown to have a positive impact on physical activity (PA) levels, health and wellbeing for adult and older adult populations. There has been very little work carried out to explore the effectiveness of walking interventions for adults with intellectual disabilities. This paper will provide details of the Walk Well intervention, designed for adults with intellectual disabilities, and a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test its effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: This study will adopt a RCT design, with participants allocated to the walking intervention group or a waiting list control group. The intervention consists of three PA consultations (baseline, six weeks and 12 weeks) and an individualised 12 week walking programme.A range of measures will be completed by participants at baseline, post intervention (three months from baseline) and at follow up (three months post intervention and six months from baseline). All outcome measures will be collected by a researcher who will be blinded to the study groups. The primary outcome will be steps walked per day, measured using accelerometers. Secondary outcome measures will include time spent in PA per day (across various intensity levels), time spent in sedentary behaviour per day, quality of life, self-efficacy and anthropometric measures to monitor weight change. DISCUSSION: Since there are currently no published RCTs of walking interventions for adults with intellectual disabilities, this RCT will examine if a walking intervention can successfully increase PA, health and wellbeing of adults with intellectual disabilities. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN: ISRCTN50494254.

Person centred planning: an evaluation of a training programme.

This paper is concerned with an evaluation of a training programme in Person Centred Planning (PCP). It begins by briefly outlining the principles and practice of PCP and describes a consortium set up to provide training in PCP. The findings of an evaluation of the training programme are then presented. Person Centred Planning is relatively new to this country and the training programme was an innovative one. It is important that its activities are more widely reported, and its strengths and weaknesses identified, in order to inform similar future initiatives. Finally, the paper identifies some issues of relevance to other training programs in the social care field.