Samantha Hajna1, Stephen J Sharp1, Andrew J M Cooper1, Kate M Williams2, Esther M F van Sluijs1, Soren Brage1, Simon J Griffin3, Stephen Sutton2. 1. MRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 2. Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 3. MRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Electronic address: profgp@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Around 23% of adults worldwide are insufficiently active. Wearable devices paired with virtual coaching software could increase physical activity. The effectiveness of 3 minimal contact interventions (paper-based physical activity diaries, activity trackers, and activity trackers coupled with virtual coaching) in increasing physical activity energy expenditure and cardiorespiratory fitness were compared over 12 weeks among inactive adults. METHODS: This was an open label, parallel-group RCT. Inactive adults (aged ≥18 years, N=488) were randomized to no intervention (Control; n=121), paper-based diary (Diary; n=124), activity tracker (Activity Band; n=122), or activity tracker plus virtual coaching (Activity Band PLUS; n=121) groups. Coprimary outcomes included 12-week changes in physical activity energy expenditure and fitness (May 2012-January 2014). Analyses were conducted in 2019-2020. RESULTS: There were no differences between groups overall (physical activity energy expenditure: p=0.114, fitness: p=0.417). However, there was a greater increase in physical activity energy expenditure (4.21 kJ/kg/day, 95% CI=0.42, 8.00) in the Activity Band PLUS group than in the Diary group. There were also greater decreases in BMI and body fat percentage in the Activity Band PLUS group than in the Control group (BMI= -0.24 kg/m2, 95% CI= -0.45, -0.03; body fat= -0.48%, 95% CI= -0.88, -0.08) and in theActivity Band PLUS group than in the Diary group (BMI= -0.30 kg/m2, 95% CI= -0.50, -0.09; body fat= -0.57%, 95% CI= -0.97, -0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Coupling activity trackers with virtual coaching may facilitate increases in physical activity energy expenditure compared with a traditional paper‒based physical activity diary intervention and improve some secondary outcomes compared with a traditional paper‒based physical activity diary intervention or no intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov ISRCTN31844443.
INTRODUCTION: Around 23% of adults worldwide are insufficiently active. Wearable devices paired with virtual coaching software could increase physical activity. The effectiveness of 3 minimal contact interventions (paper-based physical activity diaries, activity trackers, and activity trackers coupled with virtual coaching) in increasing physical activity energy expenditure and cardiorespiratory fitness were compared over 12 weeks among inactive adults. METHODS: This was an open label, parallel-group RCT. Inactive adults (aged ≥18 years, N=488) were randomized to no intervention (Control; n=121), paper-based diary (Diary; n=124), activity tracker (Activity Band; n=122), or activity tracker plus virtual coaching (Activity Band PLUS; n=121) groups. Coprimary outcomes included 12-week changes in physical activity energy expenditure and fitness (May 2012-January 2014). Analyses were conducted in 2019-2020. RESULTS: There were no differences between groups overall (physical activity energy expenditure: p=0.114, fitness: p=0.417). However, there was a greater increase in physical activity energy expenditure (4.21 kJ/kg/day, 95% CI=0.42, 8.00) in the Activity Band PLUS group than in the Diary group. There were also greater decreases in BMI and body fat percentage in the Activity Band PLUS group than in the Control group (BMI= -0.24 kg/m2, 95% CI= -0.45, -0.03; body fat= -0.48%, 95% CI= -0.88, -0.08) and in theActivity Band PLUS group than in the Diary group (BMI= -0.30 kg/m2, 95% CI= -0.50, -0.09; body fat= -0.57%, 95% CI= -0.97, -0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Coupling activity trackers with virtual coaching may facilitate increases in physical activity energy expenditure compared with a traditional paper‒based physical activity diary intervention and improve some secondary outcomes compared with a traditional paper‒based physical activity diary intervention or no intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov ISRCTN31844443.
Authors: Pedro C Hallal; Lars Bo Andersen; Fiona C Bull; Regina Guthold; William Haskell; Ulf Ekelund Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Kathryn A Britton; Joseph M Massaro; Joanne M Murabito; Bernard E Kreger; Udo Hoffmann; Caroline S Fox Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-07-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: J Graham Thomas; Hollie A Raynor; Dale S Bond; Anna K Luke; Chelsi C Cardoso; Gary D Foster; Rena R Wing Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: I-Min Lee; Eric J Shiroma; Felipe Lobelo; Pekka Puska; Steven N Blair; Peter T Katzmarzyk Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: André Henriksen; Martin Haugen Mikalsen; Ashenafi Zebene Woldaregay; Miroslav Muzny; Gunnar Hartvigsen; Laila Arnesdatter Hopstock; Sameline Grimsgaard Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 5.428