Developing physical activity counselling in primary care through participatory action approach.

BACKGROUND: Many adults are insufficiently physically active for health. Counselling is the main method to promote physical activity (PA) in primary care but often implemented inadequately. The aim of this study was to increase health professionals' i) know-how about health-related PA and PA counselling, ii) implementation and quality of PA counselling, iii) familiarity with and use of Physical Activity Prescription (PAP), iv) internal and external collaboration and v) use of electronic patient record system in PA counselling. METHODS: Four Finnish health centres participated. Each nominated a working group for reaching the goals through a 6-month development work, which was supported with monthly tutorials by the research group. The outcome evaluation of the development work included 19 variables, which reflected the five goals and were assessed before (baseline) and after the development work (follow-up). Variable-specific differences in proportions (%) and their 95 % confidence intervals (CI) between the time points indicated change. The measures were questionnaires to the health professionals (N = 75 at baseline and N = 80 at follow-up) and patients (N = 441 and N = 431), professionals' record sheets on patient visits (N = 1008 and N = 1000), and telephone interviews to external partners (N = 48 and N = 28). The process was evaluated with the extent the working group members participated in the development work and with the implementation of development actions. Assessment was based on meeting minutes of tutorials and working group meetings. RESULTS: Health professionals' familiarity with PAP (questionnaire, change 39 %-points; 95 % CI 26.5 to 52.5) and use of PAP (questionnaire, 32 %-points; 95 % CI 18.9 to 45.1 and record sheet, 4 %-points; 95 % CI 2.7 to 5.3) increased. A greater proportion of professionals had agreed in their working unit on using PAP (questionnaire, 32 %-points; 95 % CI 20.3 to 43.7) and used PAP as a referral to other health professionals (record sheet, 1 %-point; 95 % CI 0.3 to 1.7). Also the know-how of PA and PA counselling showed improvement but not statistically significantly. The working group members participated unevenly in the development work and had difficulties in allocating time for the work. This was seen in limited number of actions implemented. CONCLUSIONS: The study was able to achieve some improvements in the familiarity with and use of PAP and to lesser extent in the know-how of health-related PA and PA counselling. To observe changes in other goals, which targeted more at organisational, inter-professional and multi-sectorial level, may have required more long-term actions.

Prevention of gestational diabetes: design of a cluster-randomized controlled trial and one-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Annual prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is 12.5% among Finnish pregnant women. The prevalence is expected to rise with the increasing overweight among women before pregnancy. Physical activity and diet are both known to have favourable effects on insulin resistance and possibly on the risk of GDM. We aimed to investigate, whether GDM can be prevented by counseling on diet, physical activity and gestational weight gain during pregnancy. METHODS/DESIGN: A cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted in 14 municipalities in the southern part of Finland. Pairwise randomization was performed in order to take into account socioeconomic differences. Recruited women were at 8-12 weeks' gestation and fulfilled at least one of the following criteria: body mass index>or=25 kg/m2, history of earlier gestational glucose intolerance or macrosomic newborn (>4500 g), age>or=40 years, first or second degree relative with history of type 1 or 2 diabetes. Main exclusion criterion was pathological oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at 8-12 weeks' gestation. The trial included one counseling session on physical activity at 8-12 weeks' gestation and one for diet at 16-18 weeks' gestation, and three to four booster sessions during other routine visits. In the control clinics women received usual care. Information on height, weight gain and other gestational factors was obtained from maternity cards. Physical activity, dietary intake and quality of life were followed by questionnaires during pregnancy and at 1-year postpartum. Blood samples for lipid status, hormones, insulin and OGTT were taken at 8-12 and 26-28 weeks' gestation and 1 year postpartum. Workability and return to work were elicited by a questionnaire at 1- year postpartum. Linkage to the national birth register of years 2007-2009 will provide information on perinatal complications and GDM incidence among the non-participants of the study. Cost-effectiveness evaluation will be based on quality-adjusted life years. This study has received ethical approval from the Ethical board of Pirkanmaa Hospital District. DISCUSSION: The study will provide information on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gestational physical activity and dietary counseling on prevention of GDM in a risk group of women. Also information on the prevalence of GDM and postpartum metabolic syndrome will be gained. Results on maintaining the possible health behaviour changes are important in order to prevent chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered ISRCTN 33885819.

Prioritizing guideline topics: development and evaluation of a practical tool.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: A clear process for selecting and adopting clinical practice guidelines in the new topic areas is needed. The aim of this study is to design and develop a practical tool to assess guideline topics that have been suggested to the organization responsible for producing guidelines. METHODS: We carried out an iterative development, feasibility and validation study of a guideline topic prioritization tool. The setting included the guideline producer organization and the tax-funded health care system. In the first stage of the tool development, participants were researchers, members of the Current Care Board and experts from health care organizations. In the second stage, the evaluation was done internally within the project by three independent reviewers. The main outcome measures were responses to an evaluation questionnaire, qualitative process feedback and analysis of the performance of the instrument on a random set of guidelines. RESULTS: Evaluations by three independent reviewers revealed good agreement and face validity with respect to its feasibility as a planning tool at the guideline board level. Feedback from board members suggested that the instrument is useful in prioritizing guideline topics. CONCLUSION: This instrument was accepted for use by the Board. Further developments are needed to ensure feedback and acceptability of the instrument by those proposing topics.