Effects of a Web-Based Personalized Intervention on Physical Activity in European Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Cyril Fm Marsaux, Carlos Celis-Morales, Rosalind Fallaize, Anna L Macready, Silvia Kolossa, Clara Woolhead, Clare B O'Donovan, Hannah Forster, Santiago Navas-Carretero, Rodrigo San-Cristobal, Christina-Paulina Lambrinou, George Moschonis, Agnieszka Surwillo, Magdalena Godlewska, Annelies Goris, Jettie Hoonhout, Christian A Drevon, Yannis Manios, Iwona Traczyk, Marianne C Walsh, Eileen R Gibney, Lorraine Brennan, J Alfredo Martinez, Julie A Lovegrove, Michael J Gibney, Hannelore Daniel, John C Mathers, Wim Hm Saris
Author Information
  1. Cyril Fm Marsaux: Department of Human Biology, School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University Medical Centre + (MUMC+), Maastricht, Netherlands. c.marsaux@maastrichtuniversity.nl. ORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The high prevalence of physical inactivity worldwide calls for innovative and more effective ways to promote physical activity (PA). There are limited objective data on the effectiveness of Web-based personalized feedback on increasing PA in adults.
OBJECTIVE: It is hypothesized that providing personalized advice based on PA measured objectively alongside diet, phenotype, or genotype information would lead to larger and more sustained changes in PA, compared with nonpersonalized advice.
METHODS: A total of 1607 adults in seven European countries were randomized to either a control group (nonpersonalized advice, Level 0, L0) or to one of three personalized groups receiving personalized advice via the Internet based on current PA plus diet (Level 1, L1), PA plus diet and phenotype (Level 2, L2), or PA plus diet, phenotype, and genotype (Level 3, L3). PA was measured for 6 months using triaxial accelerometers, and self-reported using the Baecke questionnaire. Outcomes were objective and self-reported PA after 3 and 6 months.
RESULTS: While 1270 participants (85.81% of 1480 actual starters) completed the 6-month trial, 1233 (83.31%) self-reported PA at both baseline and month 6, but only 730 (49.32%) had sufficient objective PA data at both time points. For the total cohort after 6 months, a greater improvement in self-reported total PA (P=.02) and PA during leisure (nonsport) (P=.03) was observed in personalized groups compared with the control group. For individuals advised to increase PA, we also observed greater improvements in those two self-reported indices (P=.006 and P=.008, respectively) with increased personalization of the advice (L2 and L3 vs L1). However, there were no significant differences in accelerometer results between personalized and control groups, and no significant effect of adding phenotypic or genotypic information to the tailored feedback at month 3 or 6. After 6 months, there were small but significant improvements in the objectively measured physical activity level (P<.05), moderate PA (P<.01), and sedentary time (P<.001) for individuals advised to increase PA, but these changes were similar across all groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Different levels of personalization produced similar small changes in objective PA. We found no evidence that personalized advice is more effective than conventional "one size fits all" guidelines to promote changes in PA in our Web-based intervention when PA was measured objectively. Based on self-reports, PA increased to a greater extent with more personalized advice. Thus, it is crucial to measure PA objectively in any PA intervention study.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01530139; http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01530139 (Archived by WebCite at: http://www.webcitation.org/6XII1QwHz).

Keywords

Associated Data

ClinicalTrials.gov | NCT01530139

References

  1. Int J Sports Med. 1999 Jul;20(5):284-9 [PMID: 10452224]
  2. Health Promot Int. 2001 Dec;16(4):305-14 [PMID: 11733449]
  3. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Jun;79(6):1013-9 [PMID: 15159231]
  4. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005 Sep;37(9):1535-41 [PMID: 16177606]
  5. Public Health Nutr. 2005 Oct;8(7A):1133-52 [PMID: 16277825]
  6. J Med Internet Res. 2007 Apr 27;9(2):e7 [PMID: 17478409]
  7. Am J Prev Med. 2007 Oct;33(4):336-345 [PMID: 17888860]
  8. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008 Jan;40(1):181-8 [PMID: 18091006]
  9. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009 Jun 03;6:30 [PMID: 19490649]
  10. J Med Internet Res. 2009 Jul 28;11(3):e23 [PMID: 19666456]
  11. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2010 Sep;18(9):1845-51 [PMID: 20186133]
  12. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Feb;43(2):357-64 [PMID: 20581716]
  13. J Phys Act Health. 2010 Jul;7(4):541-50 [PMID: 20683097]
  14. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010 Sep 20;7:68 [PMID: 20854659]
  15. Telemed J E Health. 2011 Sep;17(7):509-23 [PMID: 21718092]
  16. J Med Internet Res. 2011 Dec 31;13(4):e126 [PMID: 22209829]
  17. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012 Apr 30;9:52 [PMID: 22546283]
  18. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36345 [PMID: 22590532]
  19. Ann Behav Med. 2012 Oct;44(2):259-86 [PMID: 22767052]
  20. Lancet. 2012 Jul 21;380(9838):247-57 [PMID: 22818937]
  21. Obes Rev. 2013 Jun;14(6):451-62 [PMID: 23398786]
  22. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013 Nov;45(11):2105-12 [PMID: 23669877]
  23. PLoS One. 2013 Sep 16;8(9):e75398 [PMID: 24066178]
  24. Int J Obes (Lond). 2014 Jul;38(7):1011-4 [PMID: 24166066]
  25. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Nov 06;15(11):e233 [PMID: 24195965]
  26. Int J Obes (Lond). 2015 Jul;39(7):1109-13 [PMID: 25394308]
  27. Genes Nutr. 2015 Jan;10(1):450 [PMID: 25491748]
  28. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015 Mar;101(3):613-21 [PMID: 25733647]
  29. Eur J Nutr. 2016 Mar;55(2):759-769 [PMID: 25893715]
  30. Genes Nutr. 2015 Sep;10(5):28 [PMID: 26143178]
  31. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2015 Jan 12;1:4 [PMID: 27175291]
  32. Am J Clin Nutr. 1982 Nov;36(5):936-42 [PMID: 7137077]

MeSH Term

Adult
Aged
Europe
Female
Genotype
Humans
Internet
Male
Middle Aged
Motor Activity
Phenotype
Precision Medicine
Surveys and Questionnaires
Treatment Outcome

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0PApersonalizedadvice6self-reportedphysicalobjectivemeasuredobjectivelydietphenotypechangesLevelgroupsmonthsP=activitygenotypetotalcontrolplus3greatersignificantP<effectivepromotedataWeb-basedfeedbackadultsbasedinformationcomparednonpersonalizedEuropeanrandomizedgroupInternetL1L2L3usingtrialmonthtimeobservedindividualsadvisedincreaseimprovementsincreasedpersonalizationsmallsimilarinterventionBACKGROUND:highprevalenceinactivityworldwidecallsinnovativewayslimitedeffectivenessincreasingOBJECTIVE:hypothesizedprovidingalongsideleadlargersustainedMETHODS:1607sevencountrieseither0L0onethreereceivingviacurrent12triaxialaccelerometersBaeckequestionnaireOutcomesRESULTS:1270participants8581%1480actualstarterscompleted6-month12338331%baseline7304932%sufficientpointscohortimprovement02leisurenonsport03alsotwoindices006008respectivelyvsHoweverdifferencesaccelerometerresultseffectaddingphenotypicgenotypictailoredlevel05moderate01sedentary001acrossCONCLUSIONS:Differentlevelsproducedfoundevidenceconventional"onesizefitsall"guidelinesBasedself-reportsextentThuscrucialmeasurestudyTRIALREGISTRATION:ClinicalTrialsgovNCT01530139http://clinicaltrialsgov/show/NCT01530139ArchivedWebCiteat:http://wwwwebcitationorg/6XII1QwHzEffectsWeb-BasedPersonalizedInterventionPhysicalActivityAdults:RandomizedControlledTrialeHealthnutritioncontrolled

Similar Articles

Cited By