Comparing physical activity prescription with verbal advice for general practice patients with cardiovascular risk factors: results from the PEPPER randomised controlled trial.

Autor: Bellanger W; Department of General Practice, University of Angers, 49000, Angers, France., Peurois M; Department of General Practice, University of Angers, 49000, Angers, France. matthieu.peurois@univ-angers.fr.; University of Angers, Univ Rennes, EHESP, Inserm, IRSET-ESTER,, SFR ICAT, 49000, Angers, France. matthieu.peurois@univ-angers.fr., Connan L; Department of General Practice, University of Angers, 49000, Angers, France., Navasiolava N; University of Angers, CHU Angers, CRC, INSERM, CNRS, MITOVASC, Equipe CarMe, SFR ICAT, 49000, Angers, France., Missud D; Department of General Practice, University of Angers, 49000, Angers, France., Py T; Department of General Practice, University of Angers, 49000, Angers, France., Bègue C; Department of General Practice, University of Angers, 49000, Angers, France.; University of Angers, Univ Rennes, EHESP, Inserm, IRSET-ESTER,, SFR ICAT, 49000, Angers, France.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: BMC public health [BMC Public Health] 2023 Jul 20; Vol. 23 (1), pp. 1402. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Jul 20.
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-16302-6
Abstrakt: Background: Regular physical activity improves health and quality of life for people with cardiovascular risk factors. However, few studies have demonstrated the applicability of strategies in health care to promote physical activity.
Objective: To evaluate if a written physical activity prescription combined with pedometer increases physical activity over one year compared with verbal advice in patients with cardiovascular disease risk in primary care.
Methods: The randomised-controlled, interventional, 12-month PEPPER study recruited patients aged 35 to 74 years, having quarterly followed-ups for hypertension, dyslipidaemia, or diabetes, and judged insufficiently active. Seventeen practices randomised patients into either the experimental group, who received a written, personalised prescription for daily step numbers, pedometer and logbook, or control group, who received verbal advice to do at least 15 min of rapid walking or equivalent daily. The primary outcome was the change in total weekly energy expenditure measured using an accelerometer at 3 months. The secondary outcomes were changes in step count, physical activity levels, quality of life, perceived obstacles to physical activity, and biomedical indicators at 3 and 12 months.
Results: One hundred and twenty-one participants were randomised. Although, weekly energy expenditure did not differ between the prescription and verbal instruction group, the estimated time spent doing moderate-intensity activity was significantly higher in the prescription group than the verbal group by an average of four minutes/week (p = 0.018)(95% CI [0.7 - 7.4]) reaching 48 min after 12 months (95% CI: 8 - 89). Similarly, this was associated with a clinically, higher average step number of 5256 steps/week increase over a year (95% CI: 660 - 9852). Among the most sedentary subgroup, walking less than 5000 steps/day at baseline, an 8868 steps/week (95% CI [2988 - 14700]) increase was observed in the prescription group.
Conclusion: Prescribing physical activity did not significantly modify total weekly energy expenditure, but slightly increased moderate-intensity activity duration and step counts, particularly among the most sedentary participants. Prescribing personalised physical activity goals encourages sedentary patients to engage in physical activity.
Trial Registration: The PEPPER trial is registered in the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry under number NCT02317003 (15/12/2014).
(© 2023. The Author(s).)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje