|Appears in Collections:||Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Exploring non-participation in primary care physical activity interventions: PACE-UP trial interview findings|
Victor, Christina R
Cook, Derek G
Kerry, Sally M
Whincup, Peter H
|Keywords:||Primary health care|
randomised controlled trial
|Citation:||Normansell R, Holmes R, Victor CR, Cook DG, Kerry SM, Iliffe S, Ussher M, Fox-Rushby J, Whincup PH & Harris T (2016) Exploring non-participation in primary care physical activity interventions: PACE-UP trial interview findings, Trials, 17, Art. No.: 178.|
|Abstract:||Background: Trials in primary care to increase physical activity (PA) typically experience poor recruitment rates and may not recruit those with lower PA levels and who are most in need of the intervention. Despite the wellpublicised benefits of physical activity, the majority of adults in the UK remain inactive and, therefore, at greater risk of many health problems. Our aim was to investigate the reasons for non-participation in the PACE-UP trial, which is a primary care pedometer-based walking intervention. This is important for successful recruitment and retention in future PA trials and programmes. Method: We conducted semi-structured audio-recorded telephone interviews with 30 participants, aged 45-75 years, purposively sampled from those declining participation in the PACE-UP trial. Recruitment continued until data saturation and a demographically balanced sample was achieved. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded and subjected to thematic analysis. Results: Interviewees supported walking as suitable exercise for most people in this age group, recognised the importance of this type of research and general practice as an appropriate setting. Key reasons for declining were: the perception of being already 'too active'; existing medical conditions; work; travel and other commitments. Less frequently cited reasons included reluctance to be randomised, the intervention's duration, wearing a pedometer, perceived inappropriateness of trial literature and a preference for a different kind of PA or for a group activity. Conclusions: Whilst most interviewees perceived themselves to be sufficiently active, an important minority did not participate due to existing medical conditions and other commitments. Recruitment to future PA trials might be improved by tailoring activity to compensate for medical problems, and adapting PA interventions to fit around work and travel commitments. Ensuring that patient-targeted literature is succinct and inclusive and that equipment is user-friendly are also important. Primary care is seen as an appropriate setting for PA trials and programmes. © 2016 Normansell et al.|
|Rights:||© Normansell et al. 2016 This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.|
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact email@example.com providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.