| 1. |
- Anderson, Cheryl B, et al.
(författare)
-
Validation of the PDPAR as an adolescent diary : effect of accelerometer cut points
- 2005
-
Ingår i: Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 0195-9131 .- 1530-0315. ; 37:7, s. 1224-1230
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: To evaluate the validity of the Previous Day Physical Activity Recall (PDPAR) as a physical activity diary in adolescents using two accelerometer intensity classifications.METHODS: One hundred eighth graders (47 boys, 53 girls) used the PDPAR as a daily diary and wore MTI accelerometers for four consecutive days. Measured time spent in moderate (> or = 3 METs) and vigorous (> or = 6 METs) activity was based on two published MTI cut-point limits (that of Freedson et al./Trost et al. and that of Puyau et al.). Spearman rank order correlations and Bland-Altman plots were used to examine agreement between MTI and PDPAR diary estimates of activity.RESULTS: MTI estimates of mean minutes per day of total moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) were 65.2 (+/-43.2) using the Freedson et al./Trost et al. cutoffs and 17.5 (+/-18.5) using those of Puyau et al., while students self-reported 105.1 (+/-80.1) min.d(-1). Significant relationships were observed between the diary and MTI for total MVPA using either the Freedson et al./Trost et al. (r = 0.42) or Puyau et al. (r = 0.41) cutoff as well as raw counts (r = 0.44). Plots showed reasonable agreement between the diary and Freedson et al./Trost et al. MTI estimates of MVPA for daily totals of < or = 60 min, but the Puyau et al. estimates were consistently lower. Diaries overestimated activity as time increased when compared to either MTI cut point, especially on vigorous activity.CONCLUSIONS: Time estimates of MVPA differed by assessment tool, but diary estimates showed adequate association with the MTI. Diaries reflected intensity-specific activity, corresponding most closely with the Freedson et al./Trost et al. classification of moderate, but substantially overestimated vigorous activity regardless of cut-point method. This is likely due to the measurement characteristics of the PDPAR, which classifies activities in 30-min blocks, as well as the nature of common activities in which high levels of intensity are not sustained.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Rossen, Jenny, et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of a three-armed randomised controlled trial using self-monitoring of daily steps with and without counselling in prediabetes and type 2 diabetes-the Sophia Step Study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. - : BioMed Central. - 1479-5868. ; 18:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: This aimed to evaluate the effects of self-monitoring of daily steps with or without counselling support on HbA1c, other cardiometabolic risk factors and objectively measured physical activity (PA) during a 2-year intervention in a population with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes.METHODS: The Sophia Step Study was a three-armed parallel randomised controlled trial. Participants with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes were recruited in a primary care setting. Allocation (1:1:1) was made to a multi-component intervention (self-monitoring of steps with counselling support), a single-component intervention (self-monitoring of steps without counselling support) or standard care. Data were collected for primary outcome HbA1c at baseline and month 6, 12, 18 and 24. Physical activity was assessed as an intermediate outcome by accelerometer (ActiGraph GT1M) for 1 week at baseline and the 6-, 12-, 18- and 24-month follow-up visits. The intervention effects were evaluated by a robust linear mixed model.RESULTS: and HbA1c was 50 (11) mmol/mol, 21% had prediabetes and 40% were female. The dropout rate was 11% at 24 months. Effect size (CI) for the primary outcome (HbA1c) ranged from -1.3 (-4.8 to 2.2) to 1.1 (-2.4 to 4.6) mmol/mol for the multi-component vs control group and from 0.3 (-3.3 to 3.9) to 3.1 (-0.5 to 6.7) mmol/mol for the single-component vs control group. Effect size (CI) for moderate-to-vigorous physical activity ranged from 8.0 (0.4 to 15.7) to 11.1 (3.3 to 19.0) min/day for the multi-component vs control group and from 7.6 (-0.4 to 15.6) to 9.4 (1.4 to 17.4) min/day for the single-component group vs control group.CONCLUSION: This 2-year intervention, including self-monitoring of steps with or without counselling, prevented a decrease in PA but did not provide evidence for improved metabolic control and cardiometabolic risk factors in a population with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes.TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02374788 . Registered 2 March 2015-Retrospectively registered.
|
|
| 5. |
- Rossen, Jenny, et al.
(författare)
-
Physical activity promotion in the primary care setting in pre- and type 2 diabetes - the Sophia step study, an RCT
- 2015
-
Ingår i: BMC Public Health. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2458. ; 15, s. 647-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Physical activity prevents or delays progression of impaired glucose tolerance in high-risk individuals. Physical activity promotion should serve as a basis in diabetes care. It is necessary to develop and evaluate health-promoting methods that are feasible as well as cost-effective within diabetes care. The aim of Sophia Step Study is to evaluate the impact of a multi-component and a single component physical activity intervention aiming at improving HbA1c (primary outcome) and other metabolic and cardiovascular risk factors, physical activity levels and overall health in patients with pre- and type 2 diabetes.METHODS/DESIGN: Sophia Step Study is a randomized controlled trial and participants are randomly assigned to either a multi-component intervention group (A), a pedometer group (B) or a control group (C). In total, 310 patients will be included and followed for 24 months. Group A participants are offered pedometers and a website to register steps, physical activity on prescription with yearly follow-ups, motivational interviewing (10 occasions) and group consultations (including walks, 12 occasions). Group B participants are offered pedometers and a website to register steps. Group C are offered usual care. The theoretical framework underpinning the interventions is the Health Belief Model, the Stages of Change Model, and the Social Cognitive Theory. Both the multi-component intervention (group A) and the pedometer intervention (group B) are using several techniques for behavior change such as self-monitoring, goal setting, feedback and relapse prevention. Measurements are made at week 0, 8, 12, 16, month 6, 9, 12, 18 and 24, including metabolic and cardiovascular biomarkers (HbA1c as primary health outcome), accelerometry and daily steps. Furthermore, questionnaires were used to evaluate dietary intake, physical activity, perceived ability to perform physical activity, perceived support for being active, quality of life, anxiety, depression, well-being, perceived treatment, perceived stress and diabetes self- efficacy.DISCUSSION: This study will show if a multi-component intervention using pedometers with group- and individual consultations is more effective than a single- component intervention using pedometers alone, in increasing physical activity and improving HbA1c, other metabolic and cardiovascular risk factors, physical activity levels and overall health in patients with pre- and type 2 diabetes.TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02374788 . Registered 28 January 2015.
|
|
| 6. |
- Rossen, Jenny, et al.
(författare)
-
Process evaluation of the Sophia Step Study : a primary care based three-armed randomized controlled trial using self-monitoring of steps with and without counseling in prediabetes and type 2 diabetes
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BMC Public Health. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1471-2458. ; 21:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundDescribing implementation features of an intervention is required to compare interventions and to inform policy and best practice. The aim of this study was to conduct a process evaluation of the first 12 months of the Sophia Step Study: a primary care based RCT evaluating a multicomponent (self-monitoring of daily steps plus counseling) and a single component (self-monitoring of steps only) physical activity intervention to standard care on cardiometabolic health.MethodsThe evaluation was guided by the Medical Research Council Guidance for complex interventions. To describe the implementation communication with the health professionals implementing the interventions, attendance records and tracking of days with self-monitored pedometer-determined steps were used. Change in physical activity behaviour was measured at baseline, 6 and 12 months as daily steps by accelerometry.ResultsDuring April 2013 to January 2018 188 participants were randomized and intervened directly after inclusion. Response rate was 49% and drop out was 10%. A majority, 78%, had type 2 diabetes and 22% were diagnosed with prediabetes. Mean [Standard deviation (SD)] body mass index was 30.4 (4.4) kg/m2 and steps per day was 6566 (3086). The interventions were delivered as intended with minor deviation from the protocol and dose received was satisfying for both the multicomponent and single component group. The mean [95% Confidence Interval (CI)] change in daily steps from baseline to 6 months was 941(227, 1655) steps/day for the multicomponent intervention group, 990 (145, 1836) step/day for the single component group and − 506 (− 1118, 107) for the control group. The mean (95% CI) change in daily steps from baseline to 12 months was 31(− 507, 570) steps/day for the multicomponent intervention group, 144 (− 566, 853) step/day for the single component group and − 890 (− 1485, − 294) for the control group. There was a large individual variation in daily steps at baseline as well as in step change in all three groups.ConclusionsApplying self-monitoring of steps is a feasible method to implement as support for physical activity in the primary care setting both with and without counseling support.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
