Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: Football Fans in Training (FFIT): a randomised controlled trial of a gender-sensitised weight loss and healthy living programme for men – end of study report
Author(s): Wyke, Sally
Hunt, Kate
Gray, Cindy M
Fenwick, Elisabeth
Bunn, Christopher
Donnan, Peter T
Rauchhaus, Petra
Mutrie, Nanette
Anderson, Annie S
Boyer, Nicole
Brady, Adrian
Grieve, Eleanor
White, Alan
Ferrell, Catherine
Hindle, Elaine
Treweek, Shaun
Issue Date: 1-Jan-2015
Citation: Wyke S, Hunt K, Gray CM, Fenwick E, Bunn C, Donnan PT, Rauchhaus P, Mutrie N, Anderson AS, Boyer N, Brady A, Grieve E, White A, Ferrell C, Hindle E & Treweek S (2015) Football Fans in Training (FFIT): a randomised controlled trial of a gender-sensitised weight loss and healthy living programme for men – end of study report, Public Health Research, 3 (2), pp. 1-130.
Abstract: Background: The prevalence of male obesity is increasing alongside low uptake of existing weight management programmes by men. Football Fans in Training (FFIT) is a group-based, weight management and healthy living programme delivered by community coaches. Objectives: To assess (1) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FFIT, (2) fidelity of delivery and (3) coach and participant experiences of FFIT. Design: A two-arm, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial; associated cost-effectiveness [in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) within trial and over individuals’ lifetimes]; and process evaluation. Participants were block randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio, stratified by club; the intervention group started FFIT within 3 weeks and the comparison group were put on a 12-month waiting list. Setting: Thirteen professional football clubs in Scotland, UK. Participants: A total of 747 men aged 35–65 years with an objectively measured body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 28 kg/m2. Interventions: FFIT was gender sensitised in context, content and style of delivery. A total of 12 weekly sessions delivered at club stadia combined effective behaviour change techniques with dietary information and physical activity sessions. Men carried out a pedometer-based walking programme. A light-touch maintenance programme included six e-mails and a reunion session at 9 months. At baseline, both groups received a weight management booklet, feedback on their BMI and advice to consult their general practitioner if blood pressure was high. Primary outcome: Mean difference in weight loss between groups at 12 months expressed as absolute weight and a percentage. Intention-to-treat analyses used all available data. Data sources: Objective measurements, questionnaires, observations, focus groups and coach interviews. Results: A total of 374 men were allocated to the intervention and 333 (89%) completed 12-month assessments; a total of 374 were allocated to the comparator and 355 (95%) completed 12-month assessments. At 12 months, the mean difference in weight loss between groups, adjusted for baseline weight and club, was 4.94 kg [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.95 kg to 5.94 kg]; percentage weight loss, similarly adjusted, was 4.36% (95% CI 3.64% to 5.08%), in favour of the intervention (p < 0.0001). Sensitivity analyses gave similar results. Pre-specified subgroup analyses found no significant predictors of primary outcome. Highly significant differences in favour of the intervention were observed for objectively measured waist, percentage body fat, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and self-reported physical activity, diet and indicators of well-being and physical aspects of quality of life. Eight serious adverse events were reported, of which two were reported as related to FFIT participation. From the within-trial analysis, FFIT was estimated to cost £862 per additional man maintaining a 5% weight reduction at 12 months and £13,847 per additional QALY, both compared with no intervention. For a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000/QALY, the probability that FFIT is cost-effective, compared with no active intervention, is 0.72. This probability rises to 0.89 for a cost-effectiveness threshold of £30,000/QALY. From the longer-term analysis, FFIT was estimated to cost £2535 per life-year gained and £2810 per QALY gained. FFIT was largely delivered as intended. The process evaluation demonstrated the powerful draw of football to attract men at high risk of ill health. FFIT was popular and analyses suggest that it enabled lifestyle change in ways that were congruent with participants’ identities. Conclusions: Participation in FFIT led to significant reductions in weight at 12 months. It was cost-effective at standard levels employed in the UK, attracted men at high risk of future ill health and was enjoyable. Further research should investigate whether or not participants retained weight loss in the long term, how the programme could be optimised in relation to effectiveness and intensity of delivery and how group-based programmes may operate to enhance weight loss in comparison with individualised approaches.
DOI Link: 10.3310/phr03020
Rights: © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2015. This work was produced by Wyke et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Wyke et al_2015.pdfFulltext - Published Version11.55 MBAdobe PDFView/Open

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 providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.