Evaluation of different recruitment and randomisation methods in a trial of general practitioner-led interventions to increase physical activity: a randomised controlled feasibility study with factorial design.

FC Warren, K Stych, M Thorogood, DJ Sharp, MH Murphy, KM Turner, KA Holt, A Searle, S Bryant, C Huxley, RS Taylor, JL Campbell, M Hillsdon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Interventions promoting physical activity by General Practitioners (GPs) lack a strong evidence base. Recruiting participants to trials in primary care is challenging. We investigated the feasibility of (i) delivering three interventions to promote physical activity in inactive participants and (ii) different methods of participant recruitment and randomised allocation. We recruited general practices from Devon, Bristol and Coventry. We used a 2-by-2 factorial design for participant recruitment and randomisation. Recruitment strategies were either opportunistic (approaching patients attending their GP surgery) or systematic (selecting patients from practice lists and approaching them by letter). Randomisation strategies were either individual or by practice cluster. Feasibility outcomes included time taken to recruit the target number of participants within each practice. Participants were randomly allocated to one of three interventions: (i) written advice (control); (ii) brief GP advice (written advice plus GP advice on physical activity), and (iii) brief GP advice plus a pedometer to self-monitor physical activity during the trial. Participants allocated to written advice or brief advice eachreceived a sealed pedometer to record their physical activity, and were instructed not to unseal the pedometer before the scheduled day of data collection. Participant level outcomes were reported descriptively and included the mean number of pedometer steps over a 7-day period, and European Quality of Life (EuroQoL)-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) scores, recorded at 12 weeks' follow-up. We recruited 24 practices (12 using each recruitment method; 18 randomising by cluster, 6 randomising by individual participant), encompassing 131 participants. Opportunistic recruitment was associated with less time to target recruitment compared with systematic (mean difference (days) -54.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) -103.6; -6.2) but with greater loss to follow up (28.8% versus. 6.9%; mean difference 21.9% (95% CI 9.6%; 34.1%)). There were differences in the socio-demographic characteristics of participants according to recruitment method. There was no clear pattern of change in participant level outcomes from baseline to 12 weeks across the three arms. Delivering and trialling GP-led interventions to promote physical activity is feasible, but trial design influences time to participant recruitment, participant withdrawal, and possibly, the socio-demographic characteristics of participants.Trial registration number: ISRCTN73725618.
LanguageEnglish
Pages134
JournalTrials
Volume15
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2014

Fingerprint

Feasibility Studies
Random Allocation
General Practitioners
Exercise
Demography
Confidence Intervals
General Practice
Primary Health Care
Quality of Life

Cite this

Warren, FC ; Stych, K ; Thorogood, M ; Sharp, DJ ; Murphy, MH ; Turner, KM ; Holt, KA ; Searle, A ; Bryant, S ; Huxley, C ; Taylor, RS ; Campbell, JL ; Hillsdon, M. / Evaluation of different recruitment and randomisation methods in a trial of general practitioner-led interventions to increase physical activity: a randomised controlled feasibility study with factorial design. In: Trials. 2014 ; Vol. 15, No. 1. pp. 134.
@article{5f77e7a26f614124bee525cdddec5603,
title = "Evaluation of different recruitment and randomisation methods in a trial of general practitioner-led interventions to increase physical activity: a randomised controlled feasibility study with factorial design.",
abstract = "Interventions promoting physical activity by General Practitioners (GPs) lack a strong evidence base. Recruiting participants to trials in primary care is challenging. We investigated the feasibility of (i) delivering three interventions to promote physical activity in inactive participants and (ii) different methods of participant recruitment and randomised allocation. We recruited general practices from Devon, Bristol and Coventry. We used a 2-by-2 factorial design for participant recruitment and randomisation. Recruitment strategies were either opportunistic (approaching patients attending their GP surgery) or systematic (selecting patients from practice lists and approaching them by letter). Randomisation strategies were either individual or by practice cluster. Feasibility outcomes included time taken to recruit the target number of participants within each practice. Participants were randomly allocated to one of three interventions: (i) written advice (control); (ii) brief GP advice (written advice plus GP advice on physical activity), and (iii) brief GP advice plus a pedometer to self-monitor physical activity during the trial. Participants allocated to written advice or brief advice eachreceived a sealed pedometer to record their physical activity, and were instructed not to unseal the pedometer before the scheduled day of data collection. Participant level outcomes were reported descriptively and included the mean number of pedometer steps over a 7-day period, and European Quality of Life (EuroQoL)-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) scores, recorded at 12 weeks' follow-up. We recruited 24 practices (12 using each recruitment method; 18 randomising by cluster, 6 randomising by individual participant), encompassing 131 participants. Opportunistic recruitment was associated with less time to target recruitment compared with systematic (mean difference (days) -54.9, 95{\%} confidence interval (CI) -103.6; -6.2) but with greater loss to follow up (28.8{\%} versus. 6.9{\%}; mean difference 21.9{\%} (95{\%} CI 9.6{\%}; 34.1{\%})). There were differences in the socio-demographic characteristics of participants according to recruitment method. There was no clear pattern of change in participant level outcomes from baseline to 12 weeks across the three arms. Delivering and trialling GP-led interventions to promote physical activity is feasible, but trial design influences time to participant recruitment, participant withdrawal, and possibly, the socio-demographic characteristics of participants.Trial registration number: ISRCTN73725618.",
author = "FC Warren and K Stych and M Thorogood and DJ Sharp and MH Murphy and KM Turner and KA Holt and A Searle and S Bryant and C Huxley and RS Taylor and JL Campbell and M Hillsdon",
year = "2014",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1186/1745-6215-15-134",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "134",
journal = "Trials",
issn = "1745-6215",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

Evaluation of different recruitment and randomisation methods in a trial of general practitioner-led interventions to increase physical activity: a randomised controlled feasibility study with factorial design. / Warren, FC; Stych, K; Thorogood, M; Sharp, DJ; Murphy, MH; Turner, KM; Holt, KA; Searle, A; Bryant, S; Huxley, C; Taylor, RS; Campbell, JL; Hillsdon, M.

In: Trials, Vol. 15, No. 1, 04.2014, p. 134.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of different recruitment and randomisation methods in a trial of general practitioner-led interventions to increase physical activity: a randomised controlled feasibility study with factorial design.

AU - Warren, FC

AU - Stych, K

AU - Thorogood, M

AU - Sharp, DJ

AU - Murphy, MH

AU - Turner, KM

AU - Holt, KA

AU - Searle, A

AU - Bryant, S

AU - Huxley, C

AU - Taylor, RS

AU - Campbell, JL

AU - Hillsdon, M

PY - 2014/4

Y1 - 2014/4

N2 - Interventions promoting physical activity by General Practitioners (GPs) lack a strong evidence base. Recruiting participants to trials in primary care is challenging. We investigated the feasibility of (i) delivering three interventions to promote physical activity in inactive participants and (ii) different methods of participant recruitment and randomised allocation. We recruited general practices from Devon, Bristol and Coventry. We used a 2-by-2 factorial design for participant recruitment and randomisation. Recruitment strategies were either opportunistic (approaching patients attending their GP surgery) or systematic (selecting patients from practice lists and approaching them by letter). Randomisation strategies were either individual or by practice cluster. Feasibility outcomes included time taken to recruit the target number of participants within each practice. Participants were randomly allocated to one of three interventions: (i) written advice (control); (ii) brief GP advice (written advice plus GP advice on physical activity), and (iii) brief GP advice plus a pedometer to self-monitor physical activity during the trial. Participants allocated to written advice or brief advice eachreceived a sealed pedometer to record their physical activity, and were instructed not to unseal the pedometer before the scheduled day of data collection. Participant level outcomes were reported descriptively and included the mean number of pedometer steps over a 7-day period, and European Quality of Life (EuroQoL)-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) scores, recorded at 12 weeks' follow-up. We recruited 24 practices (12 using each recruitment method; 18 randomising by cluster, 6 randomising by individual participant), encompassing 131 participants. Opportunistic recruitment was associated with less time to target recruitment compared with systematic (mean difference (days) -54.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) -103.6; -6.2) but with greater loss to follow up (28.8% versus. 6.9%; mean difference 21.9% (95% CI 9.6%; 34.1%)). There were differences in the socio-demographic characteristics of participants according to recruitment method. There was no clear pattern of change in participant level outcomes from baseline to 12 weeks across the three arms. Delivering and trialling GP-led interventions to promote physical activity is feasible, but trial design influences time to participant recruitment, participant withdrawal, and possibly, the socio-demographic characteristics of participants.Trial registration number: ISRCTN73725618.

AB - Interventions promoting physical activity by General Practitioners (GPs) lack a strong evidence base. Recruiting participants to trials in primary care is challenging. We investigated the feasibility of (i) delivering three interventions to promote physical activity in inactive participants and (ii) different methods of participant recruitment and randomised allocation. We recruited general practices from Devon, Bristol and Coventry. We used a 2-by-2 factorial design for participant recruitment and randomisation. Recruitment strategies were either opportunistic (approaching patients attending their GP surgery) or systematic (selecting patients from practice lists and approaching them by letter). Randomisation strategies were either individual or by practice cluster. Feasibility outcomes included time taken to recruit the target number of participants within each practice. Participants were randomly allocated to one of three interventions: (i) written advice (control); (ii) brief GP advice (written advice plus GP advice on physical activity), and (iii) brief GP advice plus a pedometer to self-monitor physical activity during the trial. Participants allocated to written advice or brief advice eachreceived a sealed pedometer to record their physical activity, and were instructed not to unseal the pedometer before the scheduled day of data collection. Participant level outcomes were reported descriptively and included the mean number of pedometer steps over a 7-day period, and European Quality of Life (EuroQoL)-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) scores, recorded at 12 weeks' follow-up. We recruited 24 practices (12 using each recruitment method; 18 randomising by cluster, 6 randomising by individual participant), encompassing 131 participants. Opportunistic recruitment was associated with less time to target recruitment compared with systematic (mean difference (days) -54.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) -103.6; -6.2) but with greater loss to follow up (28.8% versus. 6.9%; mean difference 21.9% (95% CI 9.6%; 34.1%)). There were differences in the socio-demographic characteristics of participants according to recruitment method. There was no clear pattern of change in participant level outcomes from baseline to 12 weeks across the three arms. Delivering and trialling GP-led interventions to promote physical activity is feasible, but trial design influences time to participant recruitment, participant withdrawal, and possibly, the socio-demographic characteristics of participants.Trial registration number: ISRCTN73725618.

U2 - 10.1186/1745-6215-15-134

DO - 10.1186/1745-6215-15-134

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 134

JO - Trials

T2 - Trials

JF - Trials

SN - 1745-6215

IS - 1

ER -