Workplace pedometer interventions for increasing physical activity

BackgroundThe World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum have recommended further research to strengthen current knowledge of workplace health programmes, particularly on effectiveness and using simple instruments. A pedometer is one such simple instrument that can be incorporated in workplace interventions.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of pedometer interventions in the workplace for increasing physical activity and improving subsequent health outcomes.Search methodsElectronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (671 potential papers), MEDLINE (1001), Embase (965), CINAHL (1262), OSH UPDATE databases (75) and Web of Science (1154) from the earliest record to between 30th January and 6th February 2012 yielded 3248 unique records. Reference lists of articles yielded an additional 34 papers. Contact with individuals and organisations did not produce any further records.Selection criteriaWe included individual and cluster-randomised controlled trials of workplace health promotion interventions with a pedometer component in employed adults. The primary outcome was physical activity and was part of the eligibility criteria. We considered subsequent health outcomes, including adverse effects, as secondary outcomes.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors undertook the screening of titles and abstracts and the full-text papers independently. Two review authors (RFP and MC) independently completed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We contacted authors to obtain additional data and clarification.Main resultsWe found four relevant studies providing data for 1809 employees, 60% of whom were allocated to the intervention group. All studies assessed outcomes immediately after the intervention had finished and the intervention duration varied between three to six months. All studies had usual treatment control conditions; however one study&rsquo;s usual treatment was an alternative physical activity programme while the other three had minimally active controls. In general, there was high risk of bias mainly due to lack of blinding, self reported outcome measurement, incomplete outcome data due to attrition, and most of the studies had not published protocols, which increases the likelihood of selective reporting.Three studies compared the pedometer programme to a minimally active control group, but the results for physical activity could not be combined because each study used a different measure of activity. One study observed an increase in physical activity under a pedometer programme, but the other two did not find a significant difference. For secondary outcomes we found improvements in body mass index, waist circumference, fasting plasma glucose, the quality of life mental component and worksite injury associated with the pedometer programmes, but these results were based on limited data from one or two small studies. There were no differences between the pedometer programme and the control group for blood pressure, a number of biochemical outcomes and the quality of life physical component. Sedentary behaviour and disease risk scores were not measured by any of the included studies.One study compared a pedometer programme and an alternative physical activity programme, but baseline imbalances made it difficult to distinguish the true improvements associated with either programme.Overall, there was insufficient evidence to assess the effectiveness of pedometer interventions in the workplace.There is a need for more high quality randomised controlled trials to assess the effectiveness of pedometer interventions in the workplace for increasing physical activity and improving subsequent health outcomes. To improve the quality of the evidence available, future studies should be registered in an online trials register, publish a protocol, allocate time and financial support to reducing attrition, and try to blind personnel (especially those who undertake measurement). To better identify the effects of pedometer interventions, future studies should report a core set of outcomes (total physical activity in METs, total time sitting in hours and minutes, objectively measured cardiovascular disease and type II diabetes risk factors, quality of life and injury), assess outcomes in the long term and undertake subgroup analyses based upon demographic subgroups (e.g. age, gender, educational status). Future studies should also compare different types of active intervention to test specific intervention components (eligibility, duration, step goal, step diary, settings), and settings (occupation, intervention provider).Authors&rsquo; conclusionsThere was limited and low quality data providing insufficient evidence to assess the effectiveness of pedometer interventions in the workplace for increasing physical activity and improving subsequent health outcomes.<br /

Workplace pedometer interventions for increasing physical activity (review)

The World Health Organization recommends that most people should undertake at least 30 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity on most days, as it reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and some cancers. However, less than 40% of the world’s population are undertaking adequate amounts of physical activity and rates have been declining. Here we assess whether pedometer workplace interventions increase physical activity and thereby lead to subsequent health benefits. To assess this, we searched for randomised controlled trials of workplace health promotion interventions that involved the use of a pedometer undertaken in employed adults. Between 30th January and 6th February 2012 we searched a range of electronic libraries and references of relevant papers, retrieving 3282 potential papers. We eventually included four studies in the review. One study compared pedometer programmes with an alternative physical activity programme, but there were important baseline differences between the intervention and control groups that made it difficult to distinguish the true effect. The three remaining studies compared pedometer programmes with minimally active control groups. One study observed an improvement in physical activity in the pedometer programme, but two other studies found no significant difference between the pedometer group and the control group. We could not combine these results together, as each study used a different measure for physical activity, so it is not clear what the overall effect is. Single studies found beneficial changes in body mass index, fasting plasma glucose, the mental component of quality of life and worksite injury associated with the pedometer programmes as opposed to the control group. However, none of the studies identified consistent differences between the pedometer programme and the control group for waist circumference, blood pressure and quality of life outcomes. In addition, we judged the majority of included studies to have a high risk of bias, mainly due to participants and staff knowing who was in the intervention and who was in the control group, attrition of participants and not having published a protocol prior to running the study. We conclude that there was insufficient evidence to assess whether workplace pedometer interventions are of benefit. There is a need for further high quality randomised controlled trials to be undertaken with a range of health outcomes and assessment in the long term

A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals

Background Biomedical journals are the main route for disseminating the results of health-related research. Despite this, their editors operate largely without formal training or certification. To our knowledge, no body of literature systematically identifying core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals exists. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a scoping review to determine what is known on the competency requirements for scientific editors of biomedical journals. Methods We searched the MEDLINE®, Cochrane Library, Embase®, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ERIC databases (from inception to November 2014) and conducted a grey literature search for research and non-research articles with competency-related statements (i.e. competencies, knowledge, skills, behaviors, and tasks) pertaining to the role of scientific editors of peer-reviewed health-related journals. We also conducted an environmental scan, searched the results of a previous environmental scan, and searched the websites of existing networks, major biomedical journal publishers, and organizations that offer resources for editors. Results A total of 225 full-text publications were included, 25 of which were research articles. We extracted a total of 1,566 statements possibly related to core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals from these publications. We then collated overlapping or duplicate statements which produced a list of 203 unique statements. Finally, we grouped these statements into seven emergent themes: (1) dealing with authors, (2) dealing with peer reviewers, (3) journal publishing, (4) journal promotion, (5) editing, (6) ethics and integrity, and (7) qualities and characteristics of editors. Discussion To our knowledge, this scoping review is the first attempt to systematically identify possible competencies of editors. Limitations are that (1) we may not have captured all aspects of a biomedical editor’s work in our searches, (2) removing redundant and overlapping items may have led to the elimination of some nuances between items, (3) restricting to certain databases, and only French and English publications, may have excluded relevant publications, and (4) some statements may not necessarily be competencies. Conclusion This scoping review is the first step of a program to develop a minimum set of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals which will be followed by a training needs assessment, a Delphi exercise, and a consensus meeting

Understanding implementability in clinical trials : a pragmatic review and concept map

Background The translation of evidence from clinical trials into practice is complex. One approach to facilitating this translation is to consider the 'implementability' of trials as they are designed and conducted. Implementability of trials refers to characteristics of the design, execution and reporting of a late-phase clinical trial that can influence the capacity for the evidence generated by that trial to be implemented. On behalf of the Australian Clinical Trials Alliance (ACTA), the national peak body representing networks of clinician researchers conducting investigator-initiated clinical trials, we conducted a pragmatic literature review to develop a concept map of implementability. Methods Documents were included in the review if they related to the design, conduct and reporting of late-phase clinical trials; described factors that increased or decreased the capacity of trials to be implemented; and were published after 2009 in English. Eligible documents included systematic reviews, guidance documents, tools or primary studies (if other designs were not available). With an expert reference group, we developed a preliminary concept map and conducted a snowballing search based on known relevant papers and websites of key organisations in May 2019. Results Sixty-five resources were included. A final map of 38 concepts was developed covering the domains of validity, relevance and usability across the design, conduct and reporting of a trial. The concepts drew on literature relating to implementation science, consumer engagement, pragmatic trials, reporting, research waste and other fields. No single resource addressed more than ten of the 38 concepts in the map. Conclusions The concept map provides trialists with a tool to think through a range of areas in which practical action could enhance the implementability of their trials. Future work could validate the strength of the associations between the concepts identified and implementability of trials and investigate the effectiveness of steps to address each concept. ACTA will use this concept map to develop guidance for trialists in Australia

Workplace pedometer interventions for increasing physical activity

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends undertaking 150 minutes of moderate‐intensity physical activity per week, but most people do not. Workplaces present opportunities to influence behaviour and encourage physical activity, as well as other aspects of a healthy lifestyle. A pedometer is an inexpensive device that encourages physical activity by providing feedback on daily steps, although pedometers are now being largely replaced by more sophisticated devices such as accelerometers and Smartphone apps. For this reason, this is the final update of this review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of pedometer interventions in the workplace for increasing physical activity and improving long‐term health outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) UPDATE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from the earliest record to December 2016. We also consulted the reference lists of included studies and contacted study authors to identify additional records. We updated this search in May 2019, but these results have not yet been incorporated. One more study, previously identified as an ongoing study, was placed in 'Studies awaiting classification'. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of workplace interventions with a pedometer component for employed adults, compared to no or minimal interventions, or to alternative physical activity interventions. We excluded athletes and interventions using accelerometers. The primary outcome was physical activity. Studies were excluded if physical activity was not measured. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. When studies presented more than one physical activity measure, we used a pre‐specified list of preferred measures to select one measure and up to three time points for analysis. When possible, follow‐up measures were taken after completion of the intervention to identify lasting effects once the intervention had ceased. Given the diversity of measures found, we used ratios of means (RoMs) as standardised effect measures for physical activity. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies, recruiting a total of 4762 participants. These studies were conducted in various high‐income countries and in diverse workplaces (from offices to physical workplaces). Participants included both healthy populations and those at risk of chronic disease (e.g. through inactivity or overweight), with a mean age of 41 years. All studies used multi‐component health promotion interventions. Eleven studies used minimal intervention controls, and four used alternative physical activity interventions. Intervention duration ranged from one week to two years, and follow‐up after completion of the intervention ranged from three to ten months. Most studies and outcomes were rated at overall unclear or high risk of bias, and only one study was rated at low risk of bias. The most frequent concerns were absence of blinding and high rates of attrition. When pedometer interventions are compared to minimal interventions at follow‐up points at least one month after completion of the intervention, pedometers may have no effect on physical activity (6 studies; very low‐certainty evidence; no meta‐analysis due to very high heterogeneity), but the effect is very uncertain. Pedometers may have effects on sedentary behaviour and on quality of life (mental health component), but these effects were very uncertain (1 study; very low‐certainty evidence). Pedometer interventions may slightly reduce anthropometry (body mass index (BMI) ‐0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐1.45 to 0.18; 3 studies; low‐certainty evidence). Pedometer interventions probably had little to no effect on blood pressure (systolic: ‐0.08 mmHg, 95% CI ‐3.26 to 3.11; 2 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence) and may have reduced adverse effects (such as injuries; from 24 to 10 per 100 people in populations experiencing relatively frequent events; odds ratio (OR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.84; low‐certainty evidence). No studies compared biochemical measures or disease risk scores at follow‐up after completion of the intervention versus a minimal intervention. Comparison of pedometer interventions to alternative physical activity interventions at follow‐up points at least one month after completion of the intervention revealed that pedometers may have an effect on physical activity, but the effect is very uncertain (1 study; very low‐certainty evidence). Sedentary behaviour, anthropometry (BMI or waist circumference), blood pressure (systolic or diastolic), biochemistry (low‐density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, total cholesterol, or triglycerides), disease risk scores, quality of life (mental or physical health components), and adverse effects at follow‐up after completion of the intervention were not compared to an alternative physical activity intervention. Some positive effects were observed immediately at completion of the intervention periods, but these effects were not consistent, and overall certainty of evidence was insufficient to assess the effectiveness of workplace pedometer interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise interventions can have positive effects on employee physical activity and health, although current evidence is insufficient to suggest that a pedometer‐based intervention would be more effective than other options. It is important to note that over the past decade, technological advancement in accelerometers as commercial products, often freely available in Smartphones, has in many ways rendered the use of pedometers outdated. Future studies aiming to test the impact of either pedometers or accelerometers would likely find any control arm highly contaminated. Decision‐makers considering allocating resources to large‐scale programmes of this kind should be cautious about the expected benefits of incorporating a pedometer and should note that these effects may not be sustained over the longer term. Future studies should be designed to identify the effective components of multi‐component interventions, although pedometers may not be given the highest priority (especially considering the increased availability of accelerometers). Approaches to increase the sustainability of intervention effects and behaviours over a longer term should be considered, as should more consistent measures of physical activity and health outcomes

A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals

Abstract Background Biomedical journals are the main route for disseminating the results of health-related research. Despite this, their editors operate largely without formal training or certification. To our knowledge, no body of literature systematically identifying core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals exists. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a scoping review to determine what is known on the competency requirements for scientific editors of biomedical journals. Methods We searched the MEDLINE®, Cochrane Library, Embase®, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ERIC databases (from inception to November 2014) and conducted a grey literature search for research and non-research articles with competency-related statements (i.e. competencies, knowledge, skills, behaviors, and tasks) pertaining to the role of scientific editors of peer-reviewed health-related journals. We also conducted an environmental scan, searched the results of a previous environmental scan, and searched the websites of existing networks, major biomedical journal publishers, and organizations that offer resources for editors. Results A total of 225 full-text publications were included, 25 of which were research articles. We extracted a total of 1,566 statements possibly related to core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals from these publications. We then collated overlapping or duplicate statements which produced a list of 203 unique statements. Finally, we grouped these statements into seven emergent themes: (1) dealing with authors, (2) dealing with peer reviewers, (3) journal publishing, (4) journal promotion, (5) editing, (6) ethics and integrity, and (7) qualities and characteristics of editors. Discussion To our knowledge, this scoping review is the first attempt to systematically identify possible competencies of editors. Limitations are that (1) we may not have captured all aspects of a biomedical editor’s work in our searches, (2) removing redundant and overlapping items may have led to the elimination of some nuances between items, (3) restricting to certain databases, and only French and English publications, may have excluded relevant publications, and (4) some statements may not necessarily be competencies. Conclusion This scoping review is the first step of a program to develop a minimum set of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals which will be followed by a training needs assessment, a Delphi exercise, and a consensus meeting

Approaches to prioritising research for clinical trial networks: a scoping review

BACKGROUND: Prioritisation of clinical trials ensures that the research conducted meets the needs of stakeholders, makes the best use of resources and avoids duplication. The aim of this review was to identify and critically appraise approaches to research prioritisation applicable to clinical trials, to inform best practice guidelines for clinical trial networks and funders. METHODS: A scoping review of English-language published literature and research organisation websites (January 2000 to January 2020) was undertaken to identify primary studies, approaches and criteria for research prioritisation. Data were extracted and tabulated, and a narrative synthesis was employed. RESULTS: Seventy-eight primary studies and 18 websites were included. The majority of research prioritisation occurred in oncology and neurology disciplines. The main reasons for prioritisation were to address a knowledge gap (51 of 78 studies [65%]) and to define patient-important topics (28 studies, [35%]). In addition, research organisations prioritised in order to support their institution’s mission, invest strategically, and identify best return on investment. Fifty-seven of 78 (73%) studies used interpretative prioritisation approaches (including Delphi surveys, James Lind Alliance and consensus workshops); six studies used quantitative approaches (8%) such as prospective payback or value of information (VOI) analyses; and 14 studies used blended approaches (18%) such as nominal group technique and Child Health Nutritional Research Initiative. Main criteria for prioritisation included relevance, appropriateness, significance, feasibility and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Current research prioritisation approaches for groups conducting and funding clinical trials are largely interpretative. There is an opportunity to improve the transparency of prioritisation through the inclusion of quantitative approaches