↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of GP referral of insufficiently active patients for expert physical activity counseling: protocol for a pragmatic randomized trial (The NewCOACH trial)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Efficacy of GP referral of insufficiently active patients for expert physical activity counseling: protocol for a pragmatic randomized trial (The NewCOACH trial)
Published in
BMC Primary Care, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12875-014-0218-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erica L James, Ben Ewald, Natalie Johnson, Wendy Brown, Fiona G Stacey, Patrick Mcelduff, Angela Booth, Fan Yang, Charlotte Hespe, Ronald C Plotnikoff

Abstract

BackgroundPhysical inactivity is fourth in the list of risk factors for global mortality. General practitioners are well placed to offer physical activity counseling but insufficient time is a barrier. Although referral to an exercise specialist is an alternative, in Australia, these allied health professionals are only publicly funded to provide face-to-face counseling to patients who have an existing chronic illness. Accordingly, this trial aims to determine the efficacy of GP referral of insufficiently active patients (regardless of their chronic disease status) for physical activity counseling (either face-to-face or predominately via telephone) by exercise specialists, based on patients¿ objectively assessed physical activity levels, compared with usual care. If the trial is efficacious, the equivalence and cost-effectiveness of face-to-face counseling versus telephone counseling will be assessed.MethodsThis three arm pragmatic randomized trial will involve the recruitment of 261 patients from primary care clinics in metropolitan and regional areas of New South Wales, Australia. Insufficiently active (less than 7000 steps/day) consenting adult patients will be randomly assigned to: 1) five face-to-face counseling sessions, 2) one face-to-face counseling session followed by four telephone calls, or 3) a generic mailed physical activity brochure (usual care). The interventions will operationalize social cognitive theory via a behavior change counseling framework. Participants will complete a survey and seven days of pedometry at baseline, and at three and 12 months post-randomization. The primary analyses will be based on intention-to-treat principles and will compare: (i) mean change in average daily step counts between baseline and 12 months for the combined intervention group (Group 1: face-to-face, and Group 2: telephone) and usual care (Group 3); (ii) step counts at 3 months post-randomization. Secondary outcomes include: self-reported physical activity, sedentary behavior, quality of life, and depression.DiscussionIf referral of primary care patients to exercise specialists increases physical activity, this process offers the prospect of systematically and sustainably reaching a large proportion of insufficiently active adults. If shown to be efficacious this trial provides evidence to expand public funding beyond those with a chronic disease and for delivery via telephone as well as face-to-face consultations.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12611000884909.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 166 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 14%
Researcher 21 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 42 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 14%
Sports and Recreations 18 11%
Psychology 15 9%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 53 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 December 2014.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#1,714
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,479
of 359,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#27
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 359,996 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.