Characteristics of control group participants who increased their physical activity in a cluster-randomized lifestyle intervention trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Meaningful improvement in physical activity among control group participants in lifestyle intervention trials is not an uncommon finding, and may be partly explained by participant characteristics. This study investigated which baseline demographic, health and behavioural characteristics were predictive of successful improvement in physical activity in usual care group participants recruited into a telephone-delivered physical activity and diet intervention trial, and descriptively compared these characteristics with those that were predictive of improvement among intervention group participants.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data come from the Logan Healthy Living Program, a primary care-based, cluster-randomized controlled trial of a physical activity and diet intervention. Multivariable logistic regression models examined variables predictive of an improvement of at least 60 minutes per week of moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity among usual care (n = 166) and intervention group (n = 175) participants.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Baseline variables predictive of a meaningful change in physical activity were different for the usual care and intervention groups. Being retired and completing secondary school (but no further education) were predictive of physical activity improvement for usual care group participants, whereas only baseline level of physical activity was predictive of improvement for intervention group participants. Higher body mass index and being unmarried may also be predictors of physical activity improvement for usual care participants.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This is the first study to examine differences in predictors of physical activity improvement between intervention group and control group participants enrolled in a physical activity intervention trial. While further empirical research is necessary to confirm findings, results suggest that participants with certain socio-demographic characteristics may respond favourably to minimal intensity interventions akin to the treatment delivered to participants in a usual care group. In future physical activity intervention trials, it may be possible to screen participants for baseline characteristics in order to target minimal-intensity interventions to those most likely to benefit. (Australian Clinical Trials Registry, <url>http://www.anzctr.org.au/default.aspx</url>, ACTRN012607000195459)</p

A mixed methods process evaluation of a person-centred falls prevention program

Background RESPOND is a telephone-based falls prevention program for older people who present to a hospital emergency department (ED) with a fall. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) found RESPOND to be effective at reducing the rate of falls and fractures, compared with usual care, but not fall injuries or hospitalisations. This process evaluation aimed to determine whether RESPOND was implemented as planned, and identify implementation barriers and facilitators. Methods A mixed-methods evaluation was conducted alongside the RCT. Evaluation participants were the RESPOND intervention group (n=263) and the clinicians delivering RESPOND (n=7). Evaluation data were collected from participant recruitment and intervention records, hospital administrative records, audio-recordings of intervention sessions, and participant questionnaires. The Rochester Participatory Decision-Making scale (RPAD) was used to evaluate person-centredness (score range 0 (worst) - 9 (best)). Process factors were compared with pre-specified criteria to determine implementation fidelity. Six focus groups were held with participants (n=41), and interviews were conducted with RESPOND clinicians (n=6). Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and qualitative data thematically. Barriers and facilitators to implementation were mapped to the ‘Capability, Opportunity, Motivation – Behaviour’ (COM-B) behaviour change framework. Results RESPOND was implemented at a lower dose than the planned 10 hours over six months, with a median (IQR) of 2.9 hours (2.1, 4). The majority (76%) of participants received their first intervention session within one month of hospital discharge. Clinicians delivered the program in a person-centred manner with a median (IQR) RPAD score of 7 (6.5, 7.5) and 87% of questionnaire respondents were satisfied with the program. The reports from participants and clinicians suggested that implementation was facilitated by the use of positive and personally relevant health messages. Complex health and social issues were the main barriers to implementation. Conclusions RESPOND was person-centred and reduced falls and fractures at a substantially lower dose, using fewer resources, than anticipated. However, the low dose delivered may account for the lack of effect on falls injuries and hospitalisations. The results from this evaluation provide detailed information to guide future implementation of RESPOND of similar programs. Trial registration: This study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12614000336684 (27 March 2014)