Kerem Shuval1, Loretta DiPietro2, Celette Sugg Skinner3, Carolyn E Barlow4, Jay Morrow5, Robert Goldsteen6, Harold W Kohl7. 1. Division of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences, University of Texas, School of Public Health, Dallas and Austin, Texas, USA Harold C Simmons Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas, USA. 2. Department of Exercise Science, The George Washington University, School of Public Health and Health Services, Washington, DC, USA. 3. Harold C Simmons Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas, USA Division of Behavioral and Communication Sciences, Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas, USA. 4. Division of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences, University of Texas, School of Public Health, Dallas and Austin, Texas, USA Cooper Institute, Dallas, Texas, USA. 5. Department of Family Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas, USA. 6. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas, USA. 7. Division of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences, University of Texas, School of Public Health, Dallas and Austin, Texas, USA Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence emphasises a relationship between prolonged sitting and increased risk for cardiometabolic disorders and premature death irrespective of the protective effects of physical activity. Primary care physicians have the potential to play a key role in modifying patients' sedentary behaviour alongside physical activity. METHODS: A pilot study examining sedentary behaviour and physical activity counselling in a primary care clinic. A total of 157 patients completed a detailed survey related to lifestyle counselling received from their primary care physician. We analysed these responses to describe counselling practices within the 5A framework, and to examine correlates (ie, patients' demographics, sedentary behaviour and physical activity and clinical variables) related to receiving counselling. RESULTS: A total of 10% received general advice to decrease sitting time, in comparison with 53% receiving general physical activity counselling. None, however, received a written plan pertaining to sedentary behaviour whereas 14% received a written physical activity prescription. Only 2% were provided with specific strategies for sedentary behaviour change in comparison with 10% for physical activity change. Multivariable analysis revealed that patients who were obese were more likely to receive counselling to decrease sitting (OR=7.0; 95% CI 1.4 to 35.2). In comparison, higher odds for receiving physical activity counselling were associated with being younger, aged 40-59 years (OR=2.4; 95% CI 1.1 to 5.4); and being a non-smoker (OR=6.1; 95% CI 1.3 to 28.4). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to assess sedentary behaviour counselling practices in primary care and such practices appear to be infrequent. Future research should attempt to establish a 'knowledge base' to inform development of sedentary behaviour interventions, which should be followed by testing feasibility, efficacy, and subsequent effectiveness of these programmes in a clinical setting. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence emphasises a relationship between prolonged sitting and increased risk for cardiometabolic disorders and premature death irrespective of the protective effects of physical activity. Primary care physicians have the potential to play a key role in modifying patients' sedentary behaviour alongside physical activity. METHODS: A pilot study examining sedentary behaviour and physical activity counselling in a primary care clinic. A total of 157 patients completed a detailed survey related to lifestyle counselling received from their primary care physician. We analysed these responses to describe counselling practices within the 5A framework, and to examine correlates (ie, patients' demographics, sedentary behaviour and physical activity and clinical variables) related to receiving counselling. RESULTS: A total of 10% received general advice to decrease sitting time, in comparison with 53% receiving general physical activity counselling. None, however, received a written plan pertaining to sedentary behaviour whereas 14% received a written physical activity prescription. Only 2% were provided with specific strategies for sedentary behaviour change in comparison with 10% for physical activity change. Multivariable analysis revealed that patients who were obese were more likely to receive counselling to decrease sitting (OR=7.0; 95% CI 1.4 to 35.2). In comparison, higher odds for receiving physical activity counselling were associated with being younger, aged 40-59 years (OR=2.4; 95% CI 1.1 to 5.4); and being a non-smoker (OR=6.1; 95% CI 1.3 to 28.4). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to assess sedentary behaviour counselling practices in primary care and such practices appear to be infrequent. Future research should attempt to establish a 'knowledge base' to inform development of sedentary behaviour interventions, which should be followed by testing feasibility, efficacy, and subsequent effectiveness of these programmes in a clinical setting. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Physical activity promotion in primary care
Authors: Saul Genuth; K G M M Alberti; Peter Bennett; John Buse; Ralph Defronzo; Richard Kahn; John Kitzmiller; William C Knowler; Harold Lebovitz; Ake Lernmark; David Nathan; Jerry Palmer; Robert Rizza; Christopher Saudek; Jonathan Shaw; Michael Steffes; Michael Stern; Jaako Tuomilehto; Paul Zimmet Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Jennifer K Carroll; Kevin Fiscella; Sean C Meldrum; Geoffrey C Williams; Christopher N Sciamanna; Pascal Jean-Pierre; Gary R Morrow; Ronald M Epstein Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2008 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Richard P Troiano; David Berrigan; Kevin W Dodd; Louise C Mâsse; Timothy Tilert; Margaret McDowell Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Dorothy D Dunlop; Jing Song; Emily K Arnston; Pamela A Semanik; Jungwha Lee; Rowland W Chang; Jennifer M Hootman Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2014-02-05
Authors: Kristin L Schneider; Christopher Andrews; Kathleen M Hovey; Rebecca A Seguin; Todd Manini; Michael J Lamonte; Karen L Margolis; Molly E Waring; Yi Ning; Stacy Sims; Yunsheng Ma; Judith Ockene; Marcia L Stefanick; Sherry L Pagoto Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Kerem Shuval; Harold W Kohl; Ira Bernstein; Dunlei Cheng; Kelley Pettee Gabriel; Carolyn E Barlow; Liu Yinghui; Loretta DiPietro Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2013-10-21 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Carolyn E Barlow; Kerem Shuval; Bijal A Balasubramanian; Darla E Kendzor; Nina B Radford; Laura F DeFina; Kelley Pettee Gabriel Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2016-12-29 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Zakkoyya H Lewis; Kenneth J Ottenbacher; Steve R Fisher; Kristofer Jennings; Arleen F Brown; Maria C Swartz; Eloisa Martinez; Elizabeth J Lyons Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Darla E Kendzor; Kerem Shuval; Kelley Pettee Gabriel; Michael S Businelle; Ping Ma; Robin R High; Erica L Cuate; Insiya B Poonawalla; Debra M Rios; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Michael D Swartz; David W Wetter Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 5.428