NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Headline
This trial did not find evidence of increased activity when combining a physical activity intervention with text messaging and telephone support at 4 years.
Abstract
Background:
Type 2 diabetes is a leading cause of mortality globally and accounts for significant health resource expenditure. Increased physical activity can reduce the risk of diabetes. However, the longer-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions in those at high risk of type 2 diabetes is unknown.
Objectives:
To investigate whether or not Walking Away from Diabetes (Walking Away) – a low-resource, 3-hour group-based behavioural intervention designed to promote physical activity through pedometer use in those with prediabetes – leads to sustained increases in physical activity when delivered with and without an integrated mobile health intervention compared with control.
Design:
Three-arm, parallel-group, pragmatic, superiority randomised controlled trial with follow-up conducted at 12 and 48 months.
Setting:
Primary care and the community.
Participants:
Adults whose primary care record included a prediabetic blood glucose measurement recorded within the past 5 years [HbA1c ≥ 42 mmol/mol (6.0%), < 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) mmol/mol; fasting glucose ≥ 5.5 mmol/l, < 7.0 mmol/l; or 2-hour post-challenge glucose ≥ 7.8 mmol/l, < 11.1 mmol/l] were recruited between December 2013 and February 2015. Data collection was completed in July 2019.
Interventions:
Participants were randomised (1 : 1 : 1) using a web-based tool to (1) control (information leaflet), (2) Walking Away with annual group-based support or (3) Walking Away Plus (comprising Walking Away, annual group-based support and a mobile health intervention that provided automated, individually tailored text messages to prompt pedometer use and goal-setting and provide feedback, in addition to biannual telephone calls). Participants and data collectors were not blinded; however, the staff who processed the accelerometer data were blinded to allocation.
Main outcome measures:
The primary outcome was accelerometer-measured ambulatory activity (steps per day) at 48 months. Other objective and self-reported measures of physical activity were also assessed.
Results:
A total of 1366 individuals were randomised (median age 61 years, median body mass index 28.4 kg/m2, median ambulatory activity 6638 steps per day, women 49%, black and minority ethnicity 28%). Accelerometer data were available for 1017 (74%) and 993 (73%) individuals at 12 and 48 months, respectively. The primary outcome assessment at 48 months found no differences in ambulatory activity compared with control in either group (Walking Away Plus: 121 steps per day, 97.5% confidence interval –290 to 532 steps per day; Walking Away: 91 steps per day, 97.5% confidence interval –282 to 463). This was consistent across ethnic groups. At the intermediate 12-month assessment, the Walking Away Plus group had increased their ambulatory activity by 547 (97.5% confidence interval 211 to 882) steps per day compared with control and were 1.61 (97.5% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.45) times more likely to achieve 150 minutes per week of objectively assessed unbouted moderate to vigorous physical activity. In the Walking Away group, there were no differences compared with control at 12 months. Secondary anthropometric, biomechanical and mental health outcomes were unaltered in either intervention study arm compared with control at 12 or 48 months, with the exception of small, but sustained, reductions in body weight in the Walking Away study arm (≈ 1 kg) at the 12- and 48-month follow-ups. Lifetime cost-effectiveness modelling suggested that usual care had the highest probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Of 50 serious adverse events, only one (myocardial infarction) was deemed possibly related to the intervention and led to the withdrawal of the participant from the study.
Limitations:
Loss to follow-up, although the results were unaltered when missing data were replaced using multiple imputation.
Conclusions:
Combining a physical activity intervention with text messaging and telephone support resulted in modest, but clinically meaningful, changes in physical activity at 12 months, but the changes were not sustained at 48 months.
Future work:
Future research is needed to investigate which intervention types, components and features can help to maintain physical activity behaviour change over the longer term.
Trial registration:
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN83465245.
Funding:
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 77. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Contents
- Plain English summary
- Scientific summary
- Chapter 1. Introduction: background and rationale
- Chapter 2. Trial design and methods
- Recruitment of participants
- Eligibility/exclusion criteria
- Protocol for participants found to have type 2 diabetes at baseline
- Protocol for participants found to have normal glycaemia at baseline
- Randomisation and blinding
- Control study arm: detailed advice leaflet
- Walking Away study arm: group-based behaviour change intervention with annual refresher sessions
- Walking Away Plus study arm: group-based behaviour change intervention, annual refresher sessions plus a mHealth intervention to provide follow-on support
- Data collection
- Primary outcome measure: change in ambulatory activity at 48 months
- Secondary outcomes and descriptive data
- Qualitative substudies
- Sample size
- Statistical analysis
- Health economics
- Research governance
- Chapter 3. Intervention description and development
- Chapter 4. Results
- Chapter 5. Qualitative substudy: focus groups/interviews with educators and participants
- Chapter 6. Cost-effectiveness analysis
- Chapter 7. Discussion and conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- References
- Appendix 1. Statistical analysis plan
- Appendix 2. Site-specific participant flow
- Appendix 3. Summary of PROPELS substantial amendments
- Appendix 4. Participants with and without primary outcome data
- Appendix 5. Self-efficacy and illness perception scores at baseline and follow-up in each study arm
- Appendix 6. Self-reported use of behaviour change strategies at baseline and follow-up in each study arm
- Appendix 7. Treatment-by-factor interactions
- Appendix 8. Self-reported physical activity outcomes and intervention effects
- Appendix 9. Secondary outcome tables
- Appendix 10. Comparison of PROPELS and simulated populations
- Appendix 11. Microcosting details for Walking Away and Walking Away Plus
- Appendix 12. Regressions used to estimate diabetes diagnoses, step count and HbA1c in the School for Public Health Research model version 3.2
- Appendix 13. Detailed breakdown of health-care resource use
- Appendix 14. Results of the within-trial scenario analyses
- Appendix 15. Adverse event reporting rates PROPELS safety data
- Appendix 16. Recently published physical activity trials designed for delivery in primary care
- Appendix 17. Text messages used in the Walking Away Plus arm of the PROPELS programme
- List of abbreviations
- Glossary
- List of supplementary material
About the Series
Declared competing interests of authors: Kamlesh Khunti reports that he is a member of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Obesity Themed Call Board and Health Services and Delivery Research Funding Committee and that he has acted as an advisor to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Melanie Davies has acted as an advisor to NICE. Daniel Pollard reports non-financial support from Novo Nordisk (Bagsværd, Denmark), Eli Lilly and Company Limited (Basingstoke, UK), Abbott (Maidenhead, UK), Diabetes Care, Sanofi-Aventis (Sanofi S.A., Paris, France) and Medtronic plc (Minneapolis, MN, USA) outside the submitted work. Charlotte Edwardson received grants from NIHR during the conduct of the study (16/41/04, 15/190/42 and 14/231/20). Thomas Yates reports grants from NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Unit during the conduct of the study. He was involved in contributing to an adapted version of the Walking Away intervention that is part the framework for the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme, led by Ingeus (main contractor) and the Leicester Diabetes Centre, University Hospitals of Leicester (subcontractor).
Article history
The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 09/162/02. The contractual start date was in November 2012. The draft report began editorial review in March 2020 and was accepted for publication in June 2021. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.
Disclaimer
This report contains transcripts of interviews conducted in the course of the research and contains language that may offend some readers.
Last reviewed: March 2020; Accepted: June 2021.
- NLM CatalogRelated NLM Catalog Entries
- Behavioural interventions to promote physical activity in a multiethnic populati...Behavioural interventions to promote physical activity in a multiethnic population at high risk of diabetes: PROPELS three-arm RCT
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...