Cardiovascular DiseasePhase 2NCT00200278
Exercise Instruction Via Phone or Print
A Phase 2 study testing PROJECT STRIDE in people with Cardiovascular Disease, run by The Miriam Hospital at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The objective of this study is to determine the differential effect of intervention delivery channel (phone versus print versus wait list control) on physical activity adoption and maintenance in previously sedentary adults. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 65 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Cardiovascular Disease
- What is being tested?
- PROJECT STRIDE
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- How many people
- 228 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Aug 2000to Mar 2005
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Individuals between the ages of 18 to 65 years were recruited for this study. Criteria for study participation were that individuals were healthy and under-active (i.e., participating in moderate or vigorous physical activity for 90 minutes or less per week).
Who cannot join
- Individuals were excluded from the study if their body mass index (BMI) was greater than 35 or if they had hypertension, heart disease of any kind or an abnormal electrocardiogram, stroke, chronic infectious disease, any musculoskeletal problem which would limit treadmill testing or impair their ability to exercise, asthma, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, or any other serious medical condition that might make exercise unsafe or unwise. Other exclusion criteria were a schedule that would make adherence unlikely (such as very frequent travel), plans to move from the area within the next year, pregnancy or plans to attempt pregnancy, self-report of more than three alcoholic drinks per day on 5 or more days per week, hospitalization for a psychiatric disorder within the last 6 months, currently suicidal, bipolar, or psychotic, or currently using prescription medication that might impair exercise performance or tolerance, specifically beta blockers. Participants agreed to be randomly assigned to any of the conditions and read and signed an institutionally approved consent form after all their questions were answered.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Centers for Behavioral and Preventive Medicine/Miriam Hospital
Providence, Rhode Island, 02903
About this study
The objective of this study is to determine the differential effect of intervention delivery channel (phone versus print versus wait list control) on physical activity adoption and maintenance in previously sedentary adults. Both delivery channels have been found to be effective, but telephone-based interventions require more commitment on the part of the subjects and are more labor intensive than print-based interventions. Thus, we will conduct a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing three groups: 1) telephone-based motivationally-tailored individualized feedback; 2) print-based, motivationally-tailored individualized feedback; 3) minimal contact waiting list control condition (receive intervention after 12 months as controls). Two hundred and twenty-eight healthy, sedentary women and men ages 18-65 will be randomly assigned to one of the two interventions or the waiting-list control condition. Our primary hypothesis is that individuals randomized to either phone or print conditions will exhibit significantly higher levels of physical activity participation at 6 and 12 months than individuals in the waiting list control condition. And, in addition, that subjects randomized to the telephone condition will exhibit significantly higher levels of physical activity participation at 6 and 12 months than those in the print condition.
Read the detailed description
As many as 60% of Americans do not engage in regular physical activity and 25% are completely inactive. The risk of cardiovascular disease is almost doubled among people who are physically inactive, comparable to the risks associated with increased systolic blood pressure, cigarette smoking, and elevated serum cholesterol. To make an impact on physical activity prevalence at the population level requires a research focus at the interface between clinical efficacy trials and large-scale dissemination studies. Studies at this interface must use proven interventions that are simultaneously effective and cost-efficient. Such interventions are the focus of this proposal.
The objective of this study is to determine the differential effect of intervention delivery channel (phone versus print versus wait list control) on physical activity adoption and maintenance in previously sedentary adults. Both delivery channels have been found to be effective, but telephone-based interventions require more commitment on the part of the subjects and are more labor intensive than print-based interventions. Thus, we will conduct a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing three groups: 1) telephone-based motivationally-tailored individualized feedback; 2) print-based, motivationally-tailored individualized feedback; 3) minimal contact waiting list control condition (receive intervention after 12 months as controls). Two hundred and twenty-eight healthy, sedentary women and men ages 18-65 will be randomly assigned to one of the two interventions or the waiting-list control condition. The two intervention arms will be matched with respect to frequency and content of contact. Data will be collected at baseline, 6, and 12 months using well-established physical activity and physical performance measures, as well as a comprehensive set of psychosocial questionnaires. Our primary hypothesis is that individuals randomized to either phone or print conditions will exhibit significantly higher levels of physical activity participation at 6 and 12 months than individuals in the waiting list control condition. And, in addition, that subjects randomized to the telephone condition will exhibit significantly higher levels of physical activity participation at 6 and 12 months than those in the print condition. Additional questions of interest include evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of the two intervention delivery approaches, each in relation to each other and to the wait list control group and examination of potential moderators and mediators of the intervention-physical activity relationship. This study will contribute important information regarding the relative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of two interventions, each of which can be utilized for widespread public health dissemination.
- Conditions
- Cardiovascular Disease
- Being tested
- PROJECT STRIDE
- Keywords
- Exercise, Intervention studies, Decision-making, computer assisted Expert systems, telephone
- Medical subject headings
- Cardiovascular Diseases, Motor Activity
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
PROJECT STRIDEBehavioural
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
7 day Physical Activity Recall
Secondary outcomes (3)
Exercise Stages of Change
Estimated VO2 max
Treadmill time
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted20 Sep 2005 (estimated)
- Study startAug 2000
- Study completionMar 2005
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Cardiovascular DiseaseStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- Single blind
- Enrolment
- 228 participants
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- The Miriam Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Brown University, Stanford University, University of Pittsburgh
- Investigators
- Bess H Marcus, PhD, Principal investigator, The Miriam Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00200278
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- R01HL064342
- Status last verified
- Sep 2005
- First submitted
- 12 Sep 2005
- Last updated
- 20 Sep 2005
- Results posted
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 20 Sep 2005. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Exercise Instruction Via Phone or Print
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00200278
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- R01HL064342
- Conditions
- Cardiovascular Disease
- Keywords
- Exercise, Intervention studies, Decision-making, computer assisted Expert systems, telephone
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 228 participants
- Lead sponsor
- The Miriam HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Brown University, Stanford University, University of Pittsburgh
- Study start
- Aug 2000
- Study completion
- Mar 2005
- First posted
- 20 Sep 2005 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The objective of this study is to determine the differential effect of intervention delivery channel (phone versus print versus wait list control) on physical activity adoption and maintenance in previously sedentary adults. Both delivery channels have been found to be effective, but telephone-based interventions require more commitment on the part of the subjects and are more labor intensive than print-based interventions. Thus, we will conduct a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing three groups: 1) telephone-based motivationally-tailored individualized feedback; 2) print-based, motivationally-tailored individualized feedback; 3) minimal contact waiting list control condition (receive intervention after 12 months as controls). Two hundred and twenty-eight healthy, sedentary women and men ages 18-65 will be randomly assigned to one of the two interventions or the waiting-list control condition. Our primary hypothesis is that individuals randomized to either phone or print conditions will exhibit significantly higher levels of physical activity participation at 6 and 12 months than individuals in the waiting list control condition. And, in addition, that subjects randomized to the telephone condition will exhibit significantly higher levels of physical activity participation at 6 and 12 months than those in the print condition.
Detailed description
As many as 60% of Americans do not engage in regular physical activity and 25% are completely inactive. The risk of cardiovascular disease is almost doubled among people who are physically inactive, comparable to the risks associated with increased systolic blood pressure, cigarette smoking, and elevated serum cholesterol. To make an impact on physical activity prevalence at the population level requires a research focus at the interface between clinical efficacy trials and large-scale dissemination studies. Studies at this interface must use proven interventions that are simultaneously effective and cost-efficient. Such interventions are the focus of this proposal.
The objective of this study is to determine the differential effect of intervention delivery channel (phone versus print versus wait list control) on physical activity adoption and maintenance in previously sedentary adults. Both delivery channels have been found to be effective, but telephone-based interventions require more commitment on the part of the subjects and are more labor intensive than print-based interventions. Thus, we will conduct a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing three groups: 1) telephone-based motivationally-tailored individualized feedback; 2) print-based, motivationally-tailored individualized feedback; 3) minimal contact waiting list control condition (receive intervention after 12 months as controls). Two hundred and twenty-eight healthy, sedentary women and men ages 18-65 will be randomly assigned to one of the two interventions or the waiting-list control condition. The two intervention arms will be matched with respect to frequency and content of contact. Data will be collected at baseline, 6, and 12 months using well-established physical activity and physical performance measures, as well as a comprehensive set of psychosocial questionnaires. Our primary hypothesis is that individuals randomized to either phone or print conditions will exhibit significantly higher levels of physical activity participation at 6 and 12 months than individuals in the waiting list control condition. And, in addition, that subjects randomized to the telephone condition will exhibit significantly higher levels of physical activity participation at 6 and 12 months than those in the print condition. Additional questions of interest include evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of the two intervention delivery approaches, each in relation to each other and to the wait list control group and examination of potential moderators and mediators of the intervention-physical activity relationship. This study will contribute important information regarding the relative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of two interventions, each of which can be utilized for widespread public health dissemination.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- Single blind
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Individuals between the ages of 18 to 65 years were recruited for this study. Criteria for study participation were that individuals were healthy and under-active (i.e., participating in moderate or vigorous physical activity for 90 minutes or less per week).
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Individuals were excluded from the study if their body mass index (BMI) was greater than 35 or if they had hypertension, heart disease of any kind or an abnormal electrocardiogram, stroke, chronic infectious disease, any musculoskeletal problem which would limit treadmill testing or impair their ability to exercise, asthma, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, or any other serious medical condition that might make exercise unsafe or unwise. Other exclusion criteria were a schedule that would make adherence unlikely (such as very frequent travel), plans to move from the area within the next year, pregnancy or plans to attempt pregnancy, self-report of more than three alcoholic drinks per day on 5 or more days per week, hospitalization for a psychiatric disorder within the last 6 months, currently suicidal, bipolar, or psychotic, or currently using prescription medication that might impair exercise performance or tolerance, specifically beta blockers. Participants agreed to be randomly assigned to any of the conditions and read and signed an institutionally approved consent form after all their questions were answered.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| PROJECT STRIDE | Behavioural | – |
Primary outcome
7 day Physical Activity Recall
3 secondary outcomes
Exercise Stages of Change
Estimated VO2 max
Treadmill time
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 20 Sep 2005.
Related trials for Cardiovascular Disease
RecruitingPhase 2
A Study to Evaluate the Efficacy of Cemsidomide + Dexamethasone in Participants With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma
Multiple Myeloma, Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma
RecruitingPhase 2/3
Efficacy, Safety, and Pharmacokinetics of Vericiguat in Pediatric Participants With Heart Failure Due to Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction (MK-1242-036)
Heart Failure, Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction
RecruitingPhase 4
Efficacy and Safety of a Half-dose Bolus of r-SAK Prior to Primary PCI in ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction
ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Active, not recruitingPhase 4
Women's IschemiA TRial to Reduce Events In Non-ObstRuctive CAD
Coronary Artery Disease
Active, not recruiting
VOLT CE Mark Study
Atrial Arrhythmia, Atrial Fibrillation
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Bess H Marcus, PhD principal investigator
The Miriam Hospital
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 2 study testing PROJECT STRIDE in people with Cardiovascular Disease, run by The Miriam Hospital at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 20 Sep 2005. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
7 day Physical Activity Recall. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 20 Sep 2005.