Share this article on:

Effects Of Community-based Physical Activity Counselling Among At-risk Individuals: 319 Board #156 June 1, 11: 00 AM - 12: 30 PM

Beedie, Chris; Domone, Sarah; Wade, Matthew; Mann, Steven

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise: May 2016 - Volume 48 - Issue 5S - p 81
doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000485250.96505.ea
A-44 Exercise is Medicine(R)/Poster - EIM in Clinical Practice, Universities and Communities Wednesday, June 1, 2016, 7:30 AM - 12:30 PM Room: Exhibit Hall A/B

1Centre for Sport & Exercise Science, Colchester, United Kingdom. 2ukactive Research Institute, London, United Kingdom.


(No relationships reported)

PURPOSE: Ensuring that at-risk groups are sufficiently physically active is a major public health challenge. Physical activity counselling (PAC) has shown some promise. However many programmes require multiple PAC sessions that are resource intensive and costly. We report a study of PAC – in this case the UK-based programme ‘Let’s Get Moving’ – built around just one PAC session and delivered from general medical practitioner (GP) surgeries.

METHODS: Participants (n=1601, M±SD age = 41.4±21.8) were identified by their local GP surgeries as meeting one or more of the following: age 18-74, currently sedentary, BMI 28-35, and/or hypertensive, and/or first medication for hypertension in last 6 months, and/or first medication for weight management in last 6 months. Participants attended a PAC session with a local community exercise professional (CEP) who was based at the surgery. At this session participants were encouraged to increase their physical activity and to attend community exercise sessions provided by local authorities. All participants received a telephone call at 6-weeks and attended a follow-up PAC session with the CEP at 12-weeks. Measures at 0 and 12 weeks were self-reported physical activity (MET-min/week) using the International Physical activity Questionnaire short-form (IPAQ) and an additional question regarding sport participation.

RESULTS: Paired sample t-tests indicated significant increases in MET-min/week in Walking (M±SD = 404.6±1622.0, p < 0.001), Moderate Activity (M±SD = 151.8±1365.2, p = 0.006), Vigorous Activity (M±SD = 193.8±1439.7, p = 0.001), Total Activity (M±SD = 659.6±2742.3, p < 0.001), and Sport Participation (M±SD = 35.5±105.5, p < 0.001). Repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant interaction suggesting that Vigorous Activity increased significantly more for females than males (F[1,533] = 3.981, p = .047). Reasons for this are unclear and warrant further investigation.

CONCLUSIONS: Whilst the absence of controls and the self-report of physical activity are limitations, data suggest that brief PAC is an effective intervention when delivered to at risk individuals, and might be especially effective in encouraging females to adopt more vigorous activity. We also speculate that PAC’s effectiveness is enhanced through being located at a GP surgery.

© 2016 American College of Sports Medicine