Feasibility and Effectiveness of Online Physical Activity Advice Based on a Personal Activity Monitor: Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

BackgroundInactive people are often not aware of the fact that they are insufficiently active. Providing insight into their actual physical activity (PA) levels may raise awareness and could, in combination with tailored PA advice, stimulate a physically active lifestyle.ObjectiveThis study evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of a 3-month intervention in which Dutch office workers were provided with a personal activity monitor (PAM) coupled to simple and concise Web-based tailored PA advice (PAM COACH).MethodParticipants were randomly assigned to the 3-month PAM intervention (n = 51) or received a single written information brochure with brief general PA recommendations (n = 51). Study outcome measures were changes in PA (recall of minutes per week spent on PA, as measured by the Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents and Adults), determinants of PA, aerobic fitness, and body composition. Follow-up measurements were performed immediately after the 3-month intervention and at 8-months, 5 months after the end of the 3-month intervention period.ResultsA total of 102 workers, 23 to 39 years old, completed the baseline measurement at the worksite. 48 completed the 3-month follow up and 38 the 8-month follow-up in the intervention group, 50 completed the 3-month follow up and 42 the 8-month follow up in the control group. 35 out of 48 (73%) participants in the PAM intervention group reported wearing the PAM regularly, and the PAM COACH was used almost once a week; 24 out of 46 (52%) PAM users set a personal goal, and 33 (72%) entered their favorite activities on the website. Main reasons for not using these items were lack of interest or not being able to find the item on the website. The majority of PAM users (34 out of 46, 74%) read the advice, of whom 14 (39%) found it unappealing. After the 3-month intervention, no significant intervention effect was observed (adjusted difference in min/week) for sedentary behavior (β = 10, 95% CI = −435 to 455), light-intensity PA (β = −129, 95% CI = −337 to 79), moderate-intensity PA (β = −13, 95% CI = −89 to 63), vigorous-intensity PA (β= −6, 95% CI = −75 to 62), and moderate- to vigorous-intensity PA (β = −23, 95% CI = −121 to 76). No significant intervention effect was observed in the PA outcomes at the 8-month follow-up. For the determinants of PA, aerobic fitness, and body composition, no statistically significant intervention effect was observed in the total study population immediately after the 3-month intervention or the 8-month follow-up.ConclusionsThe intervention appeared to be easily applicable to real-life settings. The intervention was ineffective in improving PA behavior or its determinants in healthy office workers. More attention should have been given to the quality and appropriateness of the tailored advice.Trial RegistrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 93896459; http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN93896459/ (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5iR3mf7ex)

Physical activity and stress resilience: Considering those at-risk for developing mental health problems

“…First, the current study assessed all variables concurrently; thus, we cannot identify causal links between PA and M A N U S C R I P T Adams et al, 2005;Sitthipornvorakul, Janwantanakul, & van der Beek, 2014;Slootmaker et al, 2009).…”

Impact of Workplace Physical Activity Interventions on Physical Activity and Cardiometabolic Health Among Working-Age Women

“…They included counseling, 45,54,72 appointments with occupational nurses 45 or Registered Dieticians, 71 fitness testing, 45 messages/emails providing feedback on PA, diet, or health promotion, 54,55,62,67,69,71 stages of change-based interventions, 47 personal, partner, or team goal-setting, 44,56,63,64,69 self-monitoring of body mass or PA using activity monitors or questionnaires, 55,56,60,[62][63][64][65]67,68,71 team or individual competitions, 56,64,66 online social networks to connect with friends and make public postings, 64 tailored web-based PA advice, 68 incentives, 56,63,65 PA prescriptions, 43,57 knowledge quizzes, 66 educational materials (eg, leaflets, posters, pamphlets, newsletters, reminders, or fridge magnets), 47,62,66 educational sessions, 57,69 expressions of management support, 66 active workstations, …”

“…The largest risk of bias emanated from the use of incomplete outcome data (because of high [>10%] attrition), selective reporting (because of the high number of studies with unpublished women-specific data provided for this review), and other bias (self-report measures). The quality of evidence for the RCTs [43][44][45][46][47]54,55,57,59,[61][62][63][64][66][67][68][69][70]72 was downgraded from high to very low as a consequence of high risk of bias (ie, >50% of included studies had high attrition bias, selective reporting, and used self-report measures); high heterogeneity for minutes per week of MVPA, METs per week, and MET minutes per week (I 2 statistic = 86% to 97%, P<0.0001); and evidence of publication bias (ie, asymmetrical funnel plot). The quality of evidence for the non-RCTs (ie, randomized trials without control groups, quasi-experimental studies, and pre/post studies) 56,58,60,65,71 was downgraded from moderate to very low because of a high risk of bias (ie, >50% of included studies had high attrition bias, selective reporting, and did not blind participants).…”

A Systematic Review on What Features Should Be Supported by Fitness Apps and Wearables to Help Users Overcome Obesity

“…We used keywords mentioned in the table below ( The systematic review methodology has been adopted from Lewis et al [5] and the flow chart below shows the methodology of the systematic review. In the twelve studies selected, each one was based on a different wearable device: Fitbit [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41], Gruve [42] Bluetooth Actiwatch [43], activPAL [44], PAM [45][46] Sense Wear armband [47][48][49] and MTx-W sensor [50].…”

“…These wearable devices are worn on different body parts in these studies as per monitor instructions. Studies using Fitbit [39], MTx-W [50] Gruve [42] and PAM [46] required the devices to be worn along the iliac crest. Fitzsimons et al"s [44] study, which used activePAL as a monitoring device required it to be worn along the upper thigh.…”