Kerry S Courneya1. 1. Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. kerry.courneya@ualberta.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The widespread incorporation of behavioral support interventions into exercise trials has sometimes caused confusion concerning the primary purpose of a trial. The purpose of the present paper is to offer some conceptual and methodological distinctions among three types of exercise trials with a view towards improving their design, conduct, reporting, and interpretation. DISCUSSION: Exercise trials can be divided into "health outcome trials" or "behavior change trials" based on their primary outcome. Health outcome trials can be further divided into efficacy and effectiveness trials based on their potential for dissemination into practice. Exercise efficacy trials may achieve high levels of exercise adherence by supervising the exercise over a short intervention period ("traditional" exercise efficacy trials) or by the adoption of an extensive behavioral support intervention designed to accommodate unsupervised exercise and/or an extended intervention period ("contemporary" exercise efficacy trials). Exercise effectiveness trials may emanate from the desire to test exercise interventions with proven efficacy ("traditional" exercise effectiveness trials) or the desire to test behavioral support interventions with proven feasibility ("contemporary" exercise effectiveness trials). Efficacy, effectiveness, and behavior change trials often differ in terms of their primary and secondary outcomes, theoretical models adopted, selection of participants, nature of the exercise and comparison interventions, nature of the behavioral support intervention, sample size calculation, and interpretation of trial results. SUMMARY: Exercise researchers are encouraged to clarify the primary purpose of their trial to facilitate its design, conduct, and interpretation.
BACKGROUND: The widespread incorporation of behavioral support interventions into exercise trials has sometimes caused confusion concerning the primary purpose of a trial. The purpose of the present paper is to offer some conceptual and methodological distinctions among three types of exercise trials with a view towards improving their design, conduct, reporting, and interpretation. DISCUSSION: Exercise trials can be divided into "health outcome trials" or "behavior change trials" based on their primary outcome. Health outcome trials can be further divided into efficacy and effectiveness trials based on their potential for dissemination into practice. Exercise efficacy trials may achieve high levels of exercise adherence by supervising the exercise over a short intervention period ("traditional" exercise efficacy trials) or by the adoption of an extensive behavioral support intervention designed to accommodate unsupervised exercise and/or an extended intervention period ("contemporary" exercise efficacy trials). Exercise effectiveness trials may emanate from the desire to test exercise interventions with proven efficacy ("traditional" exercise effectiveness trials) or the desire to test behavioral support interventions with proven feasibility ("contemporary" exercise effectiveness trials). Efficacy, effectiveness, and behavior change trials often differ in terms of their primary and secondary outcomes, theoretical models adopted, selection of participants, nature of the exercise and comparison interventions, nature of the behavioral support intervention, sample size calculation, and interpretation of trial results. SUMMARY: Exercise researchers are encouraged to clarify the primary purpose of their trial to facilitate its design, conduct, and interpretation.
Authors: David Moher; Sally Hopewell; Kenneth F Schulz; Victor Montori; Peter C Gøtzsche; P J Devereaux; Diana Elbourne; Matthias Egger; Douglas G Altman Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-03-23
Authors: Brian R Flay; Anthony Biglan; Robert F Boruch; Felipe González Castro; Denise Gottfredson; Sheppard Kellam; Eve K Mościcki; Steven Schinke; Jeffrey C Valentine; Peter Ji Journal: Prev Sci Date: 2005-09
Authors: Kevin E Thorpe; Merrick Zwarenstein; Andrew D Oxman; Shaun Treweek; Curt D Furberg; Douglas G Altman; Sean Tunis; Eduardo Bergel; Ian Harvey; David J Magid; Kalipso Chalkidou Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Paul J Karanicolas; Victor M Montori; P J Devereaux; Holger Schünemann; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2008-05-12 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Linda Trinh; Ronald C Plotnikoff; Ryan E Rhodes; Scott North; Kerry S Courneya Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-09-24 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Laura Q Rogers; Edward McAuley; Philip M Anton; Kerry S Courneya; Sandra Vicari; Patricia Hopkins-Price; Steven Verhulst; Robert Mocharnuk; Karen Hoelzer Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Laura Q Rogers; Kerry S Courneya; Robert A Oster; Philip M Anton; Randall S Robbs; Andres Forero; Edward McAuley Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Laura Q Rogers; Kerry S Courneya; Philip M Anton; Steven Verhulst; Sandra K Vicari; Randall S Robbs; Edward McAuley Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Laura Q Rogers; Kerry S Courneya; Stephen J Carter; Philip M Anton; Steven Verhulst; Sandra K Vicari; Randall S Robbs; Edward McAuley Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Stephen J Carter; Gary R Hunter; Edward McAuley; Kerry S Courneya; Philip M Anton; Laura Q Rogers Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2016-04-09 Impact factor: 4.442