204 resultados para Lifestyle intervention
Resumo:
Aims: This study assessed the efficacy of a school-based healthy lifestyle intervention (Sport for LIFE) for increasing physical activity, decreasing sedentary behaviour, reducing screen time behaviour, encouraging healthy attitudes and behaviour to nutrition, and reducing body mass index (BMI) in 8–9-year-old primary school children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds in Northern Ireland.
Methods: A non-randomised controlled trial of 416 children from 24 schools took part. Schools were randomly assigned to one of two groups, an intervention or control group with 12 schools in each group. The intervention group received a 12-week school-based programme based on social cognitive theory. At baseline and follow-up, groups completed questionnaires assessing physical activity, screen time behaviour and dietary patterns. On each occasion anthropometric assessments of height and weight were taken. Physical activity and sedentary behaviour were measured by accelerometry.
Results Significant effects were observed for vigorous, moderate and light activity for the intervention group at follow-up. Sedentary behaviour was significantly reduced for the intervention group but not for the control group. No significant effects of the intervention on BMI, screen time behaviour or attitudes to nutrition, with the exception of non-core foods, were shown.
Conclusions: The programme was effective in increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary behaviour, however no significant changes in screen time behaviour and attitude to nutrition, with the exception of non-core foods, were observed. Future research ideas are offered for tackling low levels of physical activity in children.
Resumo:
PURPOSE: Treatment of prostate cancer with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with an increased fat mass, decreased lean mass, increased fatigue and a reduction in quality of life (QoL). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a 6-month dietary and physical activity intervention for prostate cancer patients receiving ADT, to help minimise these side effects.
METHODS: Patients (n = 94) were recruited to this study if they were planned to receive ADT for prostate cancer for at least 6 months. Men randomised to the intervention arm received a dietary and exercise intervention, commensurate with UK healthy eating and physical activity recommendations. The primary outcome of interest was body composition; secondary outcomes included fatigue, QoL, functional capacity, stress and dietary change.
RESULTS: The intervention group had a significant (p < 0.001) reduction in weight, body mass index and percentage fat mass compared to the control group at 6 months; the between-group differences were -3.3 kg (95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) -4.5, -2.1), -1.1 kg/m(2) (95 % CI -1.5, -0.7) and -2.1 % (95 % CI -2.8, -1.4), respectively, after adjustment for baseline values. The intervention resulted in improvements in functional capacity (p < 0.001) and dietary intakes but did not significantly impact fatigue, QoL or stress scores at endpoint.
CONCLUSIONS: A 6-month diet and physical activity intervention can minimise the adverse body composition changes associated with ADT.
IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This study shows that a pragmatic lifestyle intervention is feasible and can have a positive impact on health behaviours and other key outcomes in men with prostate cancer receiving ADT.
Resumo:
Background: Developing complex interventions for testing in randomised controlled trials is of increasing importance in healthcare planning. There is a need for careful design of interventions for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD). It has been suggested that integrating qualitative research in the development of a complex intervention may contribute to optimising its design but there is limited evidence of this in practice. This study aims to examine the contribution of qualitative research in developing a complex intervention to improve the provision and uptake of secondary prevention of CHD within primary care in two different healthcare systems.
Methods: In four general practices, one rural and one urban, in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, patients with CHD were purposively selected. Four focus groups with patients (N = 23) and four with staff (N = 29) informed the development of the intervention by exploring how it could be tailored and integrated with current secondary prevention activities for CHD in the two healthcare settings. Following an exploratory trial the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention were discussed in four focus groups (17 patients) and 10 interviews (staff). The data were analysed using thematic analysis.
Results: Integrating qualitative research into the development of the intervention provided depth of information about the varying impact, between the two healthcare systems, of different funding and administrative arrangements, on their provision of secondary prevention and identified similar barriers of time constraints, training needs and poor patient motivation. The findings also highlighted the importance to patients of stress management, the need for which had been underestimated by the researchers. The qualitative evaluation provided depth of detail not found in evaluation questionnaires. It highlighted how the intervention needed to be more practical by minimising administration, integrating role plays into behaviour change training, providing more practical information about stress management and removing self-monitoring of lifestyle change.
Conclusion: Qualitative research is integral to developing the design detail of a complex intervention and tailoring its components to address individuals' needs in different healthcare systems. The findings highlight how qualitative research may be a valuable component of the preparation for complex interventions and their evaluation.
Resumo:
Objective: To apply the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for development and evaluation of trials of complex interventions to a primary healthcare intervention to promote secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Study Design: Case report of intervention development. Methods: First, literature relating to secondary prevention and lifestyle change was reviewed. Second, a preliminary intervention was modeled, based on literature findings and focus group interviews with patients (n = 23) and staff (n = 29) from 4 general practices. Participants’ experiences of and attitudes toward key intervention components were explored. Third, the preliminary intervention was pilot-tested in 4 general practices. After delivery of the pilot intervention, practitioners evaluated the training sessions, and qualitative data relating to experiences of the intervention were collected using semistructured interviews with staff (n = 10) and patient focus groups (n = 17). Results: Literature review identified 3 intervention components: a structured recall system, practitioner training, and patient information. Initial qualitative data identified variations in recall system design, training requirements (medication prescribing, facilitating behavior change), and information appropriate to the prospective study participants. Identifying detailed structures within intervention components clarified how the intervention could be tailored to individual practice, practitioner, and patient needs while preserving the theoretical functions of the components. Findings from the pilot phase informed further modeling of the intervention, reducing administrative time, increasing practical content of training, and omitting unhelpful patient information. Conclusion: Application of the MRC framework helped to determine the feasibility and development of a complex intervention for primary care research.
Resumo:
Background: Recently both the UK and US governments have advocated the use of financial incentives to encourage healthier lifestyle choices but evidence for the cost-effectiveness of such interventions is lacking. Our aim was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a quasi-experimental trial, exploring the use of financial incentives to increase employee physical activity levels, from a healthcare and employer’s perspective.
Methods: Employees used a ‘loyalty card’ to objectively monitor their physical activity at work over 12 weeks. The Incentive Group (n=199) collected points and received rewards for minutes of physical activity completed. The No Incentive Group (n=207) self-monitored their physical activity only. Quality of life (QOL) and absenteeism were assessed at baseline and 6 months follow-up. QOL scores were also converted into productivity estimates using a validated algorithm. The additional costs of the Incentive Group were divided by the additional quality adjusted life years (QALYs) or productivity gained to calculate incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) and population expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was used to characterize and value the uncertainty in our estimates.
Results: The Incentive Group performed more physical activity over 12 weeks and by 6 months had achieved greater gains in QOL and productivity, although these mean differences were not statistically significant. The ICERs were £2,900/QALY and £2,700 per percentage increase in overall employee productivity. Whilst the confidence intervals surrounding these ICERs were wide, CEACs showed a high chance of the intervention being cost-effective at low willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds.
Conclusions: The Physical Activity Loyalty card (PAL) scheme is potentially cost-effective from both a healthcare and employer’s perspective but further research is warranted to reduce uncertainty in our results. It is based on a sustainable “business model” which should become more cost-effective as it is delivered to more participants and can be adapted to suit other health behaviors and settings. This comes at a time when both UK and US governments are encouraging business involvement in tackling public health challenges.
Resumo:
Background: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to evaluate lifestyle interventions but littleis known about differences between patients returning valid and invalid responses, or of potential for bias inevaluations. We aimed to examine the characteristics of patients who returned valid responses to lifestylequestionnaires compared to those whose responses were invalid for evaluating lifestyle change.
Methods: We conducted a secondary data analysis from the SPHERE Study, a trial of an intervention to improveoutcomes for patients with coronary heart disease in primary care. Postal questionnaires were used to assessphysical activity (Godin) and diet (DINE) among study participants at baseline and 18 month follow-up. Three binaryresponse variables were generated for analysis: (1) valid Godin score; (2) valid DINE Fibre score; and (3) validDINE Total Fat score. Multivariate analysis comprised generalised estimating equation regression to examine theassociation of patients’ characteristics with their return of valid responses at both timepoints.
Results: Overall, 92.1% of participants (832/903) returned questionnaires at both baseline and 18 months. Relativelyfewer valid Godin scores were returned by those who left school aged <15 years (36.5%) than aged 18 and over(50.5%), manual workers (39.5%) than non-manual (49.5%) and those with an elevated cholesterol (>5 mmol)(34.7%) than those with a lower cholesterol (44.4%) but multivariate analysis identified that only school leaving age(p = 0.047) was of statistical significance.Relatively fewer valid DINE scores were returned by manual than non-manual workers (fibre: 80.8% v 86.8%;fat: 71.2% v 80.0%), smokers (fibre: 72.6% v 84.7%; fat: 67.5% v 76.9%), patients with diabetes (fibre: 75.9% v 82.9%;fat: 66.9% v 75.8%) and those with cholesterol >5 mmol (fat: 68.2% v 76.2%) but multivariate analysis showedstatistical significance only for smoking (fibre: p = 0.013; fat: p = 0.045), diabetes (fibre: p = 0.039; fat: p = 0.047), andcholesterol (fat: p = 0.039).
Conclusions: Our findings illustrate the importance of detailed reporting of research methods, with clearinformation about response rates, respondents and valid outcome data. Outcome measures which are relevant to astudy population should be chosen carefully. The impact of methods of outcome measurement and valid responserates in evaluating healthcare requires further study.
Resumo:
There is convincing evidence that applied behaviour analysis (ABA) offers a highly effective form of intervention for children with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD). There is less evidence, however, about how parents perceive and evaluate ABA programmes. In this paper an examination of parents’ perceptions of outcome is reported. Twenty-two questionnaires were completed by two groups of parents. The first group had just completed an introductory course in ABA and were in the early stages of implementing ABA programmes with their children. The second group had been involved in ABA education for more than 2 years. Overall, both groups of parents reported a positive impact of ABA on the lives of their children, their family life, and themselves. The long- term group reported that they had achieved complex goals with their children, whilst the short-term group reported an immediate positive impact on child and family functioning and parental self-esteem. Conclusions are drawn in the context of evidence-based practice.