PURPOSE: A four-group randomized controlled trial evaluated the impact of distinct workplace interventions to increase the physical activity (PA) and to reduce anthropometric parameters in middle-age women. METHODS:One-hundred and ninety-five women age 40-50 yr who were employees from a university hospital and physically inactive at their leisure time were randomly assigned to one of four groups: minimal treatment comparator (MTC; n = 47), pedometer-based individual counseling (PedIC; n = 53), pedometer-based group counseling (PedGC; n = 48), and aerobic training (AT; n = 47). The outcomes were total number of steps (primary outcome), those performed at moderate intensity (≥ 110 steps per minute), and weight and waist circumference (secondary outcomes). Evaluations were performed at baseline, at the end of a 3-month intervention, and 3 months after that. Data were presented as delta [(after 3 months-baseline) or (after 6 months-baseline)] and 95% confidence interval. To detect the differences among the groups, a one-way ANOVA and a Holm-Sidak post hoc test was used (P < 0.05). The Cohen effect size was calculated, and an intention-to-treat approach was performed. RESULTS: Only groups using pedometers (PedIC and PedGC) increased the total number of steps after 3 months (P < 0.05); however, the increase observed in PedGC group (1475 steps per day) was even higher than that in PedIC (512 steps per day, P < 0.05) with larger effect size (1.4). The number of steps performed at moderate intensity also increased only in the PedGC group (845 steps per day, P < 0.05). No PA benefit was observed at 6 months. Women submitted to AT did not modify PA daily life activity but reduced anthropometric parameters after 3 and 6 months (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that in the workplace setting, pedometer-based PA intervention with counseling is effective increasing daily life number of steps, whereas AT is effective for weight loss.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: A four-group randomized controlled trial evaluated the impact of distinct workplace interventions to increase the physical activity (PA) and to reduce anthropometric parameters in middle-age women. METHODS: One-hundred and ninety-five women age 40-50 yr who were employees from a university hospital and physically inactive at their leisure time were randomly assigned to one of four groups: minimal treatment comparator (MTC; n = 47), pedometer-based individual counseling (PedIC; n = 53), pedometer-based group counseling (PedGC; n = 48), and aerobic training (AT; n = 47). The outcomes were total number of steps (primary outcome), those performed at moderate intensity (≥ 110 steps per minute), and weight and waist circumference (secondary outcomes). Evaluations were performed at baseline, at the end of a 3-month intervention, and 3 months after that. Data were presented as delta [(after 3 months-baseline) or (after 6 months-baseline)] and 95% confidence interval. To detect the differences among the groups, a one-way ANOVA and a Holm-Sidak post hoc test was used (P < 0.05). The Cohen effect size was calculated, and an intention-to-treat approach was performed. RESULTS: Only groups using pedometers (PedIC and PedGC) increased the total number of steps after 3 months (P < 0.05); however, the increase observed in PedGC group (1475 steps per day) was even higher than that in PedIC (512 steps per day, P < 0.05) with larger effect size (1.4). The number of steps performed at moderate intensity also increased only in the PedGC group (845 steps per day, P < 0.05). No PA benefit was observed at 6 months. Women submitted to AT did not modify PA daily life activity but reduced anthropometric parameters after 3 and 6 months (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that in the workplace setting, pedometer-based PA intervention with counseling is effective increasing daily life number of steps, whereas AT is effective for weight loss.
Authors: Stephanie A Prince; Jennifer L Reed; Kara A Nerenberg; Elizabeth A Kristjansson; Swapnil Hiremath; Kristi B Adamo; Heather E Tulloch; Kerri-Anne Mullen; J George Fodor; Erica Wright; Robert D Reid Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2014-11-04
Authors: Marc A Adams; Jane C Hurley; Michael Todd; Nishat Bhuiyan; Catherine L Jarrett; Wesley J Tucker; Kevin E Hollingshead; Siddhartha S Angadi Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-03-29 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Patricia D Freitas; Rafaella F Xavier; Natália F P Passos; Regina M Carvalho-Pinto; Alberto Cukier; Milton A Martins; Vinícius Cavalheri; Kylie Hill; Rafael Stelmach; Celso R F Carvalho Journal: BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil Date: 2019-08-14
Authors: Samantha Hajna; Nancy A Ross; Anne-Sophie Brazeau; Patrick Bélisle; Lawrence Joseph; Kaberi Dasgupta Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-08-11 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Charlotte L Brakenridge; Brianna S Fjeldsoe; Duncan C Young; Elisabeth A H Winkler; David W Dunstan; Leon M Straker; Christian J Brakenridge; Genevieve N Healy Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2016-05-25