4.7 Article

A population-based randomized controlled trial of the effect of combining a pedometer with an intervention toolkit on physical activity among individuals with low levels of physical activity or fitness

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 54, Issue 2, Pages 125-130

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.12.012

Keywords

Exercise; Walking; Intervention studies; Randomized controlled trial; Health promotion

Funding

  1. Tryg Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. To examine if receiving a pedometer along with an intervention toolkit is associated with increased physical activity, aerobic fitness and better self-rated health among individuals with low levels of physical activity or fitness. Methods. The intervention was nested in the Danish Health Examination Survey (DANHES) and carried out in 2008. Participants were randomly assigned to either a pedometer group (n=326) or a control group (n = 329). Physical activity, aerobic fitness, and self-rated health were measured at baseline and at 3-month follow-up, and differences were tested by Wilcoxons signed rank tests and Chi-squared tests. Results. At follow-up, no significant differences in physical activity, aerobic fitness and self-rated health were found between the groups. However, the oldest participants in the pedometer group reported significantly more walking time compared to the controls (controls = 368 min/week, pedometer group = 680 min/week, P = 0.05). Among participants who completed the intervention, a significant effect on total walking time was observed (median difference = 225 min/week, P = 0.04). Conclusions. The results suggest that receiving a pedometer and along with an intervention toolkit can increase walking time in older individuals, but not in younger individuals. Thus, this type of intervention offers great potential for promoting physical activity in older individuals.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available