Suppr超能文献

比较心血管危险因素普通患者的体力活动处方与口头建议:来自 PEPPER 随机对照试验的结果。

Comparing physical activity prescription with verbal advice for general practice patients with cardiovascular risk factors: results from the PEPPER randomised controlled trial.

机构信息

Department of General Practice, University of Angers, 49000, Angers, France.

University of Angers, Univ Rennes, EHESP, Inserm, IRSET-ESTER,, SFR ICAT, 49000, Angers, France.

出版信息

BMC Public Health. 2023 Jul 20;23(1):1402. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-16302-6.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Regular physical activity improves health and quality of life for people with cardiovascular risk factors. However, few studies have demonstrated the applicability of strategies in health care to promote physical activity.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate if a written physical activity prescription combined with pedometer increases physical activity over one year compared with verbal advice in patients with cardiovascular disease risk in primary care.

METHODS

The randomised-controlled, interventional, 12-month PEPPER study recruited patients aged 35 to 74 years, having quarterly followed-ups for hypertension, dyslipidaemia, or diabetes, and judged insufficiently active. Seventeen practices randomised patients into either the experimental group, who received a written, personalised prescription for daily step numbers, pedometer and logbook, or control group, who received verbal advice to do at least 15 min of rapid walking or equivalent daily. The primary outcome was the change in total weekly energy expenditure measured using an accelerometer at 3 months. The secondary outcomes were changes in step count, physical activity levels, quality of life, perceived obstacles to physical activity, and biomedical indicators at 3 and 12 months.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-one participants were randomised. Although, weekly energy expenditure did not differ between the prescription and verbal instruction group, the estimated time spent doing moderate-intensity activity was significantly higher in the prescription group than the verbal group by an average of four minutes/week (p = 0.018)(95% CI [0.7 - 7.4]) reaching 48 min after 12 months (95% CI: 8 - 89). Similarly, this was associated with a clinically, higher average step number of 5256 steps/week increase over a year (95% CI: 660 - 9852). Among the most sedentary subgroup, walking less than 5000 steps/day at baseline, an 8868 steps/week (95% CI [2988 - 14700]) increase was observed in the prescription group.

CONCLUSION

Prescribing physical activity did not significantly modify total weekly energy expenditure, but slightly increased moderate-intensity activity duration and step counts, particularly among the most sedentary participants. Prescribing personalised physical activity goals encourages sedentary patients to engage in physical activity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The PEPPER trial is registered in the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry under number NCT02317003 (15/12/2014).

摘要

背景

定期进行身体活动可改善心血管危险因素患者的健康和生活质量。然而,很少有研究证明医疗保健策略在促进身体活动方面的适用性。

目的

评估在初级保健中,与口头建议相比,书面身体活动处方加计步器是否能在一年中增加身体活动量,患者患有心血管疾病风险。

方法

这项随机对照、干预性、为期 12 个月的 PEPPER 研究招募了年龄在 35 至 74 岁之间的患者,这些患者每季度接受高血压、血脂异常或糖尿病的随访,且被评估为活动不足。17 个实践单位将患者随机分为实验组或对照组,实验组患者收到一份个性化的日常步数、计步器和日志的书面活动处方,对照组患者收到每天至少进行 15 分钟快走或等效日常活动的口头建议。主要结局是使用加速度计在 3 个月时测量的总每周能量消耗的变化。次要结局是在 3 个月和 12 个月时的步数、身体活动水平、生活质量、身体活动障碍感知和生物医学指标的变化。

结果

121 名参与者被随机分配。尽管处方组和口头指导组的每周能量消耗没有差异,但在处方组中,平均每周进行中度强度活动的时间明显高于口头组,平均每周增加 4 分钟(p=0.018)(95%CI [0.7 - 7.4]),在 12 个月后达到 48 分钟(95%CI:8 - 89)。同样,这与平均每周增加 5256 步的更高的平均步数值相关,一年后增加了 5256 步(95%CI:660 - 9852)。在基线时每天行走少于 5000 步的最久坐的亚组中,在处方组中观察到每周增加 8868 步(95%CI [2988 - 14700])。

结论

开身体活动处方并没有显著改变每周总能量消耗,但略微增加了中等强度活动的持续时间和步数,尤其是在最久坐的参与者中。开个性化的身体活动目标鼓励久坐的患者参与身体活动。

试验注册

PEPPER 试验在美国国立卫生研究院临床试验注册处注册,编号为 NCT02317003(2014 年 12 月 15 日)。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8eae/10360325/38284ccf3b62/12889_2023_16302_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验