ANZCTR - Registration

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this information for consumers

Trial registered on ANZCTR

Registration number

ACTRN12611000966998

Ethics application status

Approved

Date submitted

3/09/2011

Date registered

8/09/2011

Date last updated

8/09/2011

Type of registration

Retrospectively registered

Titles & IDs

Public title

Effect of Face-to-Face vs. E-mail Communication on Fitness and Quality of Life in an Employee-Based Walking Program

Scientific title

Among employees enrolled in a work-based walking program, is e-mail communication comparable to face-to-face communication for fitness and quality of life outcomes?

Secondary ID [1]

Nil

Universal Trial Number (UTN)

U1111-1124-2651

Trial acronym

Linked study record

Health condition

Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:

Physical Fitness

Physical Activity Level

Quality of Life

Condition category

Condition code

Public Health

Health promotion/education

Intervention/exposure

Study type

Interventional

Description of intervention(s) / exposure

The 10-week walking program began by requiring participants to engage in 20 minutes of moderate intensity walking, defined by a rating of perceived exertion (RPE) of 12, 3 days per week. RPE is a validated scale for self-regulation of exercise intensity. An RPE rating of 12-13 corresponds with "somewhat hard" exercise, and approximately 60% Heart Rate Reserve. On alternating weeks, the required walks increased in either intensity (RPE 14) or duration (5 minutes). By the of the 10 week program, participants were walking for 45 minutes a day, 4 days per week, at an RPE of 14.

The intervention group had a face-to-face meeting with the researcher once a week. During these small group meetings (3-4 participants plus the instructor), the subjects completed one of their weekly walks with the researcher and were provided with verbal feedback based on a physical copy of a weekly workout log returned to the instructor. They were also provided with verbal encouragement and instruction for the next week.

Intervention code [1]

Behaviour

Intervention code [2]

Lifestyle

Comparator / control treatment

The control group was subject to the same walking progression. However, they received the same weekly motivational and instructional material through e-mail only. Weekly workout logs were submitted to the researcher via e-mail.

Control group

Active

Outcomes

Primary outcome [1]

WHOQOL-BREF score and sub-scores. The WHOQOL-BREF is a questionnaire which assesses overall quality of life, and breaks it into the following domains: physical health, psychological health, social relationships, and environment.

Timepoint [1]

Week 0 and Week 10

Primary outcome [2]

Rockport Walk Test. Based on the time to completion and Heart Rate upon completion, the Rockport 1-mile Walk Test is used as an estimate of cardiovascular fitness. It has been validated as an accurate tool for estimating VO2max (maximal oxygen capacity).

Timepoint [2]

Week 0 and Week 10

Primary outcome [3]

Treadmill Test. Subjects walk on a treadmill set at 1% grade and 3.5 mph for 5 minutes, while wearing a heart rate monitor. At the end of each minute, the subject's heart rate is recorded by the researcher. This assessment allows the researcher to study the subject's heart rate response to a standard level of exercise. While the Rockport Walk Test allows each subject to self-select walking speed, this test allows the researcher to control for walking speed, to further isolate heart rate response pre- and post-intervention.

Timepoint [3]

Week 0 and Week 10

Secondary outcome [1]

Weight change. Broadly assessed as "loss," "no change," or "gain" on an anonymous post-participation survey.

Timepoint [1]