A Kirk1, J Barnett, G Leese, N Mutrie. 1. Institute of Sport and Exercise, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK. a.kirk@dundee.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Physical activity is a cornerstone of Type 2 diabetes management but is underutilized. Physical activity consultations increase physical activity in people with Type 2 diabetes but resources are often limited. Time2Act is a randomized control trial to study the 12-month effectiveness of a physical activity consultation delivered by a person or in written form, in contrast to standard care, for people with Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A total of 134 inactive people with Type 2 diabetes in a contemplation or preparation stage were randomized to either intervention or standard care. Objective (accelerometer) and subjective (7-day recall) physical activity levels were measured over 1 week, along with physiological [blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference] and biochemical [glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), total and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol] measures at baseline, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Neither a physical activity consultation delivered by a person nor in written form was better than standard care at increasing physical activity levels or improving health outcomes in the full study cohort. Total and HDL cholesterol, waist circumference and both systolic and diastolic blood pressure improved over 12 months in all groups, whilst HbA(1c) improved over 6 months. In a subgroup (baseline pedometer steps < 5000/day), the physical activity consultation delivered by a person significantly increased physical activity over 12 months and the standard care group significantly decreased. CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed which not only investigates the most economical and effective methods to promote physical activity, but also the best setting to conduct physical activity consultations and the participant factors affecting uptake of physical activity in Type 2 diabetes.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Physical activity is a cornerstone of Type 2 diabetes management but is underutilized. Physical activity consultations increase physical activity in people with Type 2 diabetes but resources are often limited. Time2Act is a randomized control trial to study the 12-month effectiveness of a physical activity consultation delivered by a person or in written form, in contrast to standard care, for people with Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A total of 134 inactive people with Type 2 diabetes in a contemplation or preparation stage were randomized to either intervention or standard care. Objective (accelerometer) and subjective (7-day recall) physical activity levels were measured over 1 week, along with physiological [blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference] and biochemical [glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), total and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol] measures at baseline, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Neither a physical activity consultation delivered by a person nor in written form was better than standard care at increasing physical activity levels or improving health outcomes in the full study cohort. Total and HDL cholesterol, waist circumference and both systolic and diastolic blood pressure improved over 12 months in all groups, whilst HbA(1c) improved over 6 months. In a subgroup (baseline pedometer steps < 5000/day), the physical activity consultation delivered by a person significantly increased physical activity over 12 months and the standard care group significantly decreased. CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed which not only investigates the most economical and effective methods to promote physical activity, but also the best setting to conduct physical activity consultations and the participant factors affecting uptake of physical activity in Type 2 diabetes.
Authors: Melissa A Napolitano; Kelley E Borradaile; Beth A Lewis; Jessica A Whiteley; Jaime L Longval; Alfred F Parisi; Anna E Albrecht; Christopher N Sciamanna; John M Jakicic; George D Papandonatos; Bess H Marcus Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2010-08-17 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Mayank Seth; Ryan T Pohlig; Emma H Beisheim-Ryan; Samantha J Stauffer; John R Horne; Gregory E Hicks; Jaclyn Megan Sions Journal: Int J Rehabil Res Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 1.832
Authors: Sheri R Colberg; Ronald J Sigal; Bo Fernhall; Judith G Regensteiner; Bryan J Blissmer; Richard R Rubin; Lisa Chasan-Taber; Ann L Albright; Barry Braun Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Miriam C Morey; Carl F Pieper; David E Edelman; William S Yancy; Jennifer B Green; Helen Lum; Matthew J Peterson; Richard Sloane; Patricia A Cowper; Hayden B Bosworth; Kim M Huffman; James T Cavanaugh; Katherine S Hall; Megan P Pearson; Gregory A Taylor Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Angela M Craigie; Stephen Caswell; Caron Paterson; Shaun Treweek; Jill J F Belch; Fergus Daly; Jackie Rodger; Joyce Thompson; Alison Kirk; Anne Ludbrook; Martine Stead; Jane Wardle; Robert J C Steele; Annie S Anderson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-03-25 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Catrine Tudor-Locke; Cora L Craig; Yukitoshi Aoyagi; Rhonda C Bell; Karen A Croteau; Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij; Ben Ewald; Andrew W Gardner; Yoshiro Hatano; Lesley D Lutes; Sandra M Matsudo; Farah A Ramirez-Marrero; Laura Q Rogers; David A Rowe; Michael D Schmidt; Mark A Tully; Steven N Blair Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2011-07-28 Impact factor: 6.457