Background
Physical activity is associated with a range of positive physical and mental health outcomes, including a reduced risk of heart disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and improved emotional wellbeing [
1,
2]. However, despite clear evidence demonstrating the benefits associated with regular physical activity, self-report data from England suggest that approximately one fifth of men and one quarter of women are inactive (defined as participation in less than 30 min per week of moderate physical activity, or less than 15 min per week of vigorous physical activity), [
3] costing an estimated £7.4 billion each year [
4]. Compared with the general UK population, physical inactivity prevalence is even higher among those living with a long-term condition (such as type 2 diabetes and hypertension) [
5]. Effective physical activity promotion strategies are therefore required to reduce unsustainable pressure on local health and social care provision [
6,
7].
An increase in long-term conditions, alongside an ageing population, has created pressure on the delivery of services in General Practice (GP). This has led to General Practitioners and commissioners in the UK advocating and developing collaborative working practices with social prescribing services in the community [
8]. Social prescribing schemes allow primary health care professionals to refer patients to a non-medical service, such as community-based physical activities, art classes, and nature-based activities, with the aim of improving patients’ health and wellbeing [
8,
9].
The benefits of group-based physical activity for those living with long-term conditions are well established, [
10,
11] and this has resulted in group-based physical activity becoming one of the main activities of social prescription made through GP referral to leisure facilities in the community [
8]. However, despite increased interest in social prescribing via GP referral to physical activities delivered in leisure centres, two recent systematic reviews of UK-based social prescribing revealed limited evidence for its effectiveness, with differences in methodological quality and reporting standards identified [
9,
12]. Furthermore, there is little evidence for the real-world effectiveness and translation of group-based physical activity programmes specifically targeted at inactive adults with long-term conditions. The most recent systematic review evidence on this topic combine evidence from active and inactive adults, [
13] and healthy and unhealthy populations [
14]. As such, effort is required to better understand the individual and contextual factors that may facilitate the successful real-world delivery of such programmes, and to generate evidence on their cost and long-term sustainability [
15,
16].
Review-level evidence suggests that the implementation of effective and sustainable physical activity programmes requires improved transparency and consistency of reporting, [
13,
16] and further consideration of programme external validity [
16]. One framework for evaluating public health programmes that has gained attention in recent years is the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework [
17]. RE-AIM is a multi-level framework that aims to measure the effects of complex interventions while also identifying the barriers and facilitators to real-world intervention implementation [
18]. It has five dimensions which identify factors influencing internal and external validity:
Reach of the intervention for the target population;
Effectiveness of the intervention on desired outcomes;
Adoption of the intervention at setting and staff levels;
Implementation, delivery of intervention as intended and participant adherence;
Maintenance of intervention effects over time, at individual and organisational levels [
17].
CLICK into Activity was a physical activity programme that aimed to support inactive adults living with at least one of the following conditions: type 2 diabetes, pre-diabetes (defined as those with higher than normal glucose levels, but not meeting criteria for type 2 diabetes), hypertension, and overweight or obesity, to increase physical activity levels. It is an example of social prescribing, with individuals referred to community-based physical activity by a primary health care professional. The overall aim of this study was to evaluate the individual and organisational impacts of CLICK into Activity.
Results
A total of 621 individuals completed baseline measures, with 602 found to be eligible to participate in the CLICK into Activity programme. Three-month follow-up measures were completed by 186 participants (30.9%), followed by 80 participants at 6-months (13.3%), with 41 participants completing a 12-month follow-up questionnaire (6.8%).
Twenty-seven telephone interviews were conducted. One interview was conducted with the CLICK into Activity programme manager, and one with a General Practitioner (and member of the project steering group). All three CLICK into Activity exercise specialists took part in two interviews (1 year and 2 years into project delivery). Ten CLICK into Activity participants took part in an interview soon after completion of the 12-week programme, with nine completing a second interview 1-year post-CLICK into Activity enrolment. One participant emigrated and was unavailable for a second interview. Eight participants attended at least one physical activity session each week during their 12-week enrolment, one had attended 9 sessions, and one participated in 6 sessions. Results corresponding to each of the RE-AIM dimensions are presented below.
Reach
Of those eligible to participate in CLICK into Activity (
N = 602), the majority were referred to the programme due to diagnosis of pre-diabetes, type 2 diabetes or hypertension (
N = 558, 92.6%). Following relaxation of the eligibility criteria in December 2017, 22 participants were referred due to being obese or overweight (3.7%), and 22 were referred for having a combination of long-term conditions (3.7%). Table
2 reveals that the majority of participants were female (
N = 379, 63.0%) and just over half of participants were aged 70 or above (
N = 309, 51.3%). Most participants identified as being of White ethnic origin (
N = 580, 96.3%) and just over one fifth were qualified to degree level (or equivalent) (
N = 128, 21.3%). Almost one third of participants reported an annual household income of between £10,000 and £20,000 (
N = 177, 29.4%), and most participants described themselves as being in a relationship (
N = 394, 65.5%). More than 80% of respondents had a baseline BMI within the overweight and obese categories (BMI ≥25 kg/m
2,
N = 503, 83.6%).
A range of communication strategies were employed to reach the target audience, including newspaper advertising, display screens at participating GP surgeries, local community sites (online and print), and flyer distribution by exercise specialists in the local area, all advertising the programme. Despite utilising various communication channels, recruitment was low at the outset of the project. However, approximately 18 months into project delivery GP surgeries agreed to a mail-out to all patients diagnosed with at least one of the long-term conditions targeted by the programme. Recruitment figures were seen to increase following mail-outs, and qualitative interviews suggested that a wide ranging and long-term promotional strategy was essential.
I think continual promotion [is important] because there can be a lot of promotion at the beginning of the project, but then not so much as you get into the project. There hasn’t been continual promotion with the practice managers. You can’t just do [promotional activities] once and expect it to filter through to everybody. Exercise specialist 3
CLICK into Activity aimed to support 1080 individuals to attend and participate in at least one 30-min physical activity session during the 12-week programme. Of the 602 eligible individuals that provided baseline data individuals that provided baseline data, attendance records revealed that 326 participants attended at least one 30-min session (30.2% of 1080 target population). These participants attended nine sessions, on average, during the 12-week programme (M = 8.6, SD = 6.0). Just over one third of participants attended at least 12 sessions during the 12-week enrolment period (
N = 104, 32%). These figures suggest that CLICK into Activity sessions were well-liked by participants in that once they had attended one session they often returned for more. As shown in Table
2 analysis identified no differences in sex, ethnicity, relationship status or baseline BMI between those that attended a CLICK into Activity session and those that did not (
p > 0.05). There was a significantly higher proportion of those aged 70 or above attending a session compared with those that did not (55.2% vs 46.5%, respectively;
p = 0.01).
Interviews with stakeholder groups identified a range of barriers and facilitators influencing initial participation in a physical activity session. For example, individual-level factors such as personal motivation to lose weight, concerns regarding potential for exacerbating existing health issues, and the fear of embarrassment, were noted. Wider social- and environmental-level factors, including activity scheduling and social support from family, friends and the community were also identified. Qualitative interviews also highlighted the importance of the physical environment, for example the influence of the rural setting on perceptions of neighbourhood safety and subsequent participation.
In rural Somerset the evening sessions were not successful, and that was down to the target population not feeling confident going out when it was dark. So, when the winter came, and the nights were drawing in people weren’t feeling comfortable leaving their house to go to an activity session. Exercise specialist 3
Effectiveness and maintenance
Table
3 presents descriptive statistics for CLICK into Activity outcomes for each data collection point. Linear mixed models analyses revealed time to be a significant predictor of vigorous physical activity, moderate physical activity, walking, sport, total physical activity, sitting time, mental wellbeing, and grip strength (
p < 0.001). Time and initial participation interactions were not found to be statistically significant (
p > 0.05).
Table 3
Descriptive statistics: CLICK into Activity outcomes
Vigorous PAa | 600 | 0.65 | 4.71 | 184 | 58.59 | 68.28 | 79 | 82.41 | 76.89 | 41 | 53.66 | 80.89 |
Moderate PAa | 599 | 10.11 | 19.88 | 184 | 127.20 | 162.15 | 79 | 82.41 | 76.78 | 41 | 72.32 | 79.28 |
Walkinga | 594 | 39.67 | 60.04 | 185 | 114.76 | 135.58 | 80 | 88.69 | 78.45 | 41 | 86.59 | 78.19 |
Total PAa,b | 592 | 50.54 | 63.45 | 184 | 300.84 | 283.10 | 79 | 253.10 | 183.34 | 41 | 212.56 | 195.38 |
Sporta | 598 | 0.20 | 2.31 | 185 | 19.76 | 33.82 | 78 | 21.35 | 43.48 | 41 | 21.83 | 42.60 |
Sitting timea | 572 | 3092.48 | 1362.15 | 177 | 2296.36 | 985.43 | 75 | 2214.80 | 966.23 | 41 | 2053.90 | 838.05 |
Mental wellbeingc | 485 | 47.74 | 10.88 | 177 | 53.90 | 9.94 | 76 | 57.25 | 8.46 | 40 | 58.35 | 10.47 |
Grip strength (Llbs)d | 596 | 25.43 | 10.01 | 176 | 26.63 | 9.66 | 71 | 26.43 | 9.04 | 34 | 25.03 | 8.02 |
As shown in Table
4, follow-up pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni adjustments revealed significant baseline to follow-up improvements in vigorous physical activity, moderate physical activity, walking, sport, total physical activity, sitting time, and mental wellbeing across each time point (
p < 0.05). There was a significant improvement in grip strength from baseline to 3-month and baseline to 12-month follow-up (p < 0.05), but this change was not evident at 6-month follow-up (
p = 0.15). Although measures were taken to reduce the effects of missing follow-up data in our analysis, [
29] 6- and 12-month follow-up response rates were low and as such, these findings should be treated with caution.
Table 4
Effectiveness and Maintenance of CLICK into Activity: results from mixed linear models
Vigorous PA |
Baseline to 3-month follow-up | 58.59** | 3.36 | 655.23 | 50.53, 66.66 |
Baseline to 6-month follow-up | 62.24** | 6.77 | 729.08 | 45.99, 78.49 |
Baseline to 12-month follow-up | 55.87** | 6.22 | 692.85 | 40.96, 70.79 |
Moderate PA |
Baseline to 3-month follow-up | 116.99** | 7.30 | 667.55 | 99.47, 134.51 |
Baseline to 6-month follow-up | 50.88** | 14.96 | 808.68 | 14.98, 86.78 |
Baseline to 12-month follow-up | 64.34** | 13.72 | 810.94 | 31.42, 97.27 |
Walking |
Baseline to 3-month follow-up | 65.73** | 6.51 | 487.88 | 50.08, 81.38 |
Baseline to 6-month follow-up | 39.42* | 14.19 | 694.91 | 5.36, 73.47 |
Baseline to 12-month follow-up | 37.83* | 13.30 | 805.96 | 5.92, 69.74 |
Total PAa |
Baseline to 3-month follow-up | 234.87** | 12.21 | 622.24 | 205.56, 264.185 |
Baseline to 6-month follow-up | 151.56** | 25.23 | 804.96 | 91.04, 212.09 |
Baseline to 12-month follow-up | 158.60** | 23.14 | 804.86 | 103.11, 214.10 |
Sport |
Baseline to 3-month follow-up | 20.04** | 1.72 | 15.92 | 15.92, 24.16 |
Baseline to 6-month follow-up | 21.28** | 3.66 | 12.50 | 12.50, 30.07 |
Baseline to 12-month follow-up | 29.54** | 3.38 | 21.44 | 21.44, 37.65 |
Sitting time |
Baseline to 3-month follow-up | − 726.14** | 91.96 | 248.91 | − 947.78, 504.50 |
Baseline to 6-month follow-up | − 711.54** | 191.83 | 136.03 | − 1176.52, − 246.56 |
Baseline to 12-month follow-up | − 632.73** | 159.71 | 112.72 | − 1020.86, − 244.59 |
| Estimate (change in score) | SE |
df
|
95% CI
|
Mental wellbeingb |
Baseline to 3-month follow-up | 5.56** | 0.62 | 223.10 | 4.05, 7.06 |
Baseline to 6-month follow-up | 6.33** | 1.38 | 244.32 | 2.99, 9.66 |
Baseline to 12-month follow-up | 9.09** | 1.42 | 142.84 | 5.65, 12.53 |
Grip strength (Llbs)c |
Baseline to 3-month follow-up | 1.59** | 0.38 | 204.99 | 0.69, 2.50 |
Baseline to 6-month follow-up | 1.58 | 0.80 | 175.44 | −0.35, 3.51 |
Baseline to 12-month follow-up | 2.15* | 0.76 | 73.89 | 0.29, 4.00 |
Qualitative interviews with CLICK into Activity participants were consistent with quantitative findings, in that numerous positive changes were identified in participants' outlook and perceptions of their health and wellbeing as a result of being referred to the programme. These included increased mobility, weight loss, reduced symptoms from long-term conditions, increased core strength, and increased purpose and feelings of happiness.
To sum it up in a sentence, it’s brought me back to life. It’s as if I have been in hibernation. I’m a lot happier, fitter, and I can do that little bit more...I’ve lost quite a lot of weight, and I am a happier, happier person since. It’s given me more hope and a more positive attitude. It just does me so much good. I even bought a t-shirt, believe it or not. It says, ‘I got CLICKed into Life’. Participant 3
At the end of the 12-week enrolment period, CLICK into Activity participants were signposted to a range of alternative local physical activity classes. Feedback from qualitative interviews indicated that these were best received when personally recommended by an exercise specialist, as they were seen to provide trusted advice. Data also suggested that participants held positive intentions to continue to participate in physical activity after completing the programme. Participants were asked to discuss their views on paying for a service such as CLICK into Activity in the future. Most participants accepted that for such a programme to be sustained a personal contribution towards running costs was to be expected. However, it was also acknowledged that most attendees were of pensionable age with limited disposable income, so subsidised rates would be welcomed.
At an organisational level, steering group members reflected upon the potential sustainability of the programme, and highlighted concerns about engagement from GP surgeries beyond project funding.
Everyone was very enthusiastic [about the GP referral process] at the beginning [of the project] but it’s tailed off and I think this is because of the pressures that the [GP] surgeries are under. People have stopped thinking about good ideas and prevention but just gone to fire-fighting mode. General Practitioner
Referral to physical activity sessions continued at seven of nine surgeries until the end of project funding, but maintenance of the programme from referral through to activity session delivery beyond this time was uncertain due to the challenging economic climate.
Adoption
A total of nine GP surgeries adopted CLICK into Activity for at least some of the programme delivery period. Eight surgeries were originally invited to participate in the programme at the outset, but two were withdrawn due to low recruitment rates and low project buy-in; one 2-years into project delivery (November 2017) and the other in June 2018. In June 2017 a ninth GP surgery was invited to participate.
Interviews with members of the project steering group revealed that a surgery’s decision to adopt the CLICK into Activity programme was associated with a range of engagement activities with practice staff arranged in advance of programme sign-up and delivery. One example included a talk from an external General Practitioner with a specialism in physical activity; this was thought to highlight the importance of physical activity promotion, and thus increase buy-in at staff and setting levels. Qualitative interviews also identified the importance of the presence of a GP staff member visibly recommending and championing the programme in advance of programme adoption. For example, an interview with the CLICK into Activity project manager revealed that the practice manager of one GP surgery - the surgery that was invited to adopt the project following the withdrawal of two originally recruited surgeries - had lobbied for involvement with the project from its initiation and was highly enthusiastic about physical activity promotion. The CLICK into Activity project manager felt that without this enthusiasm from one member of the team, the surgery and its staff would not have agreed to adopt the programme.
Implementation
Exercise specialists reported that a key influence on effective GP referral implementation was the presence of a practice manager or staff member who had an appreciation for the value of physical activity for patients with, or at-risk of a long-term condition. Notably, an assessment of programme documentation found that the late joining surgery referred 66 participants in 12 months (11.0% of total sample), while the two surgeries withdrawn from the project referred only 49 participants between them (8.1% of total sample). One of the exercise specialists expressed surprise at the attitudes of some health professionals at participating surgeries. It was noted that physical activity was not always seen as a priority prevention strategy, and that this had a negative impact on successful implementation.
I thought ‘Great I’m going to be a team with the doctors, we are going to really work together’. I thought doctors would know the benefits of exercise, but I was shocked to see that some of them needed educating. They didn’t believe in exercise. Exercise specialist 1
Reflections on physical activity session implementation revealed that exercise specialist characteristics were integral to success. Participants reported that exercise specialists created a safe and supportive environment, instilling confidence in them from initial consultation to the end of the programme. Support and guidance from exercise specialists to participate in appropriate tailored physical activity was perceived to promote increased feelings of control over participants’ health and wellbeing. Participants also reported feelings of increased self-worth and happiness because of their engagement with exercise specialists.
The only words to describe [the exercise specialist] are ‘excellent’ and ‘awesome’. She is very, very dedicated. She deserves a medal, literally. She is very, very good; she knows what she’s doing. Participant 2
Another important feature of programme implementation success was the group delivery of CLICK into Activity sessions. Programme sessions created an opportunity for social engagement with members of the local community with similar health profiles. Many participants reported feelings of social isolation prior to CLICK into Activity, which improved through meeting new people and building social support through the programme.
I think everybody was a bit nervous to start, and then as you got to know people and more and more people joined, the old [participants] were, like, helping the new [participants]. It was just amazing because everybody said they were so nervous, and the older [participants] made the new [participants] feel so welcome. Participant 3
Qualitative interviews with CLICK into Activity participants also revealed that the content of the physical activity sessions was important, with praise for circuit training activities tailored to individuals’ needs and abilities. In response to the popularity of circuit training sessions observed through attendance figures and anecdotal feedback provided to exercise specialists, the CLICK into Activity schedule was adjusted over time, with the provision of adapted sports sessions reduced in the final year of project delivery to allow additional capacity for circuit training.
The type of class was important. We did have adapted sports, like table tennis and then Boccia and ‘new age’ curling. Some of these are really good fun to attend but I think for this type of project [with inactive adults], the circuit style delivery is better and [it] was much more popular. I think this was because people felt they were getting more for their time. The numbers are picking up where adapted sports has been swapped for circuits. Project manager
[The exercise specialist] knows how to sort of treat us ‘older people’, in the fact that caution has to be adhered to. You know, you don’t want to push people too hard. Participant 10
Interviews revealed that successful implementation of the programme was reliant on good communication across all levels of programme delivery. It was reported that quarterly steering group meetings were not always well attended due to competing pressures on project partners’ time, but they were perceived to provide an opportunity to share good practice and draw upon expertise from those working in a different field but working toward the same objective.
As shown in Table
5, the total cost of CLICK into Activity implementation over 3 years was £174,396 (2017–18 prices), based on total annual delivery and preparation costs. The average cost per person attending at least one CLICK into Activity session was £535. Annual preparation cost estimates, including training expenses, were relatively consistent (~£3000–£4000 each year), while delivery costs were seen to reduce over time as the programme became more established. Research and infrastructure development costs, including IT infrastructure, and evaluation and research expenses totalled £67,500 over 3 years. These costs were excluded from the total cost of implementation, as they would not apply to mainstream implementation.
Table 5
CLICK into Activity costs and resources
Delivery Cost Estimate |
Staff (Salaries two exercise specialists) | 42,128 | 43,368 | 41,215 |
Equipment | 4002 | 1723 | 1250 |
Hire of Facilities | 27,063 | 26,696 | 25,000 |
Surgery Room Hire (in Kind) | −22,080 | −22,080 | −22,080 |
Promotion & Publicity | 7358 | 3210 | 4000 |
Transport/Travel | 441 | 360 | 500 |
Sub Total | 58,912 | 53,277 | 49,885 |
Preparation Cost Estimate |
Training & Coaching fees/expenses | 4871 | 4451 | 3000 |
Sub-total | 4871 | 4451 | 3000 |
Research & Infrastructure Development |
IT Infrastructure | 22,500 | – | – |
Evaluation & Research | 12,500 | 16,250 | 16,250 |
Sub-total | 35,000 | 16,250 | 16,250 |
Annual Cost of Implementation (Preparation and Delivery) | 63,783 | 57,728 | 52,885 |
Total Cost of Implementation over 3 Years from a funder perspectivea | £174,396 |
Average Cost per person based on at least one attendance at CLICK into Activity 12-week programmeb | £535 |
Discussion
This study applied the RE-AIM framework to evaluate the individual and organisational impacts of GP referral of inactive adults living with (or at risk of) long-term conditions to community-based physical activity. The collection of quantitative and qualitative data from a range of sources, and the application of the RE-AIM framework, helped to identify the impacts of the programme while also highlighting potential barriers and facilitators to real-world implementation.
CLICK into Activity reached just under one third of the target population (30.2%). It is difficult to assess this figure against similar studies, as reported estimations of reach often fail to reflect the true number of eligible participants and those that go on to participate in an intervention [
13,
16]. Recruitment figures were seen to increase following GP mail-outs, adding to the evidence base in support of utilising active recruitment strategies (e.g. health professional referral or targeted mail-out [
35]) to engage a representative target audience for a physical activity programme [
36]. Relaxation of the eligibility criteria to include obese and overweight individuals saw recruitment increase to some extent. However, recruitment was most actively impacted by GP mail-out. These findings highlight the importance of taking a flexible approach to marketing and recruitment to promote programme reach. Factors contributing to initial (non-)participation were numerous and varied, including individual-, social-, and environmental-level barriers and facilitators. These findings are consistent with those from a qualitative review of reasons for physical activity participation among children and adults [
37]. Future programmes may need to consider and address some of the socio-ecological barriers preventing inactive adults from initial attendance, as our findings suggest that once an individual attends one session they often return.
Overall, positive quantitative and qualitative findings were found for programme effectiveness, and many positive outcomes were maintained up to 12 months. Follow-up physical activity responses exceeded UK physical activity recommendations for adults and older adults [
38] and are particularly encouraging in light of UK Government targets to tackle inactivity [
6,
7]. No differences were observed in target outcomes between those that attended a physical activity session and those that did not. No qualitative interviews were conducted with individuals that did not attend a session and therefore it is difficult to interpret this finding. However, this finding is consistent with those reported elsewhere [
39,
40]. One possible explanation is that the GP referral process was a brief intervention in itself, encouraging individuals to seek out activity independently; this warrants further examination.
Programme adoption at GP surgeries was successful, with all nine surgeries invited taking up the programme. However, there was only partial adoption from two surgeries, which were withdrawn from the project. Consistent with findings from a recent systematic review, [
9] our study identified a range of factors influencing programme adoption. For example, engagement activities designed to promote staff ‘buy in’ prior to programme adoption are recommended. It is possible that our findings are not generalisable, but they are consistent with those reported elsewhere [
41‐
43].
Findings suggest that future programmes involving GP referral to physical activity should consider involving surgery staff in programme development, to identify physical activity champions to influence effective GP referral implementation when the programme is up-and-running. In terms of physical activity session implementation, consistent with previous reviews [
13,
16] the support and guidance provided by programme deliverers (i.e. exercise specialists) was seen to be central to the positive changes observed in respondent outcomes. Exercise specialists were credited with providing a catalyst for change from ‘inactive’ to ‘active’, and for recognising the importance of providing instructions on how to perform physical exercises; an approach advocated in a recent systematic review of physical activity interventions for inactive adults [
44].
While previous reviews have identified benefits associated with group-based physical activity interventions in general [
16], this is one of the first known studies to lend support to group-based interventions targeted specifically at inactive individuals living with a long-term condition. This finding is encouraging given evidence for positive associations between social support and physical activity participation among adults [
45,
46] and older adults, [
47].
The total cost of implementing CLICK into Activity over 3 years was approximately £175,000, with an average cost per person attending at least one session of £535. Unfortunately there is a lack of reporting on implementation costs and resources associated with adults’ physical activity interventions, [
16,
39,
48] making it difficult to compare our findings with those of similar studies. However, the estimated cost of programme implementation compares favourably with the direct costs of disease management and common health conditions related to physical inactivity (not including costs to other parts of the NHS and wider health and social care system) [
4].
Strengths and limitations
Strengths of the study include application of the RE-AIM framework, including collation and triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data from a variety of sources; overcoming challenges in the evaluation of physical activity programmes [
22,
39,
49] and social prescribing schemes [
41‐
43] that have been reported previously. Limitations of the study include a lack of control or comparison group. Secondly, we were unable to recruit individuals that never participated in a CLICK into Activity session to participate in a qualitative interview; this limits our understanding of the barriers influencing initial engagement and participation. Thirdly, while our statistical approach was chosen precisely to mitigate the effects of missing data [
29], 6- and 12-month follow-up response rates were low, which limits understanding of longer term programme effects. Fourthly, physical activity outcomes were based on self-report data collected by trained exercise specialists. Given reports of positive rapport developed between participants and exercise specialists, it is possible that participants over-reported activity levels for social approval, as observed in previous studies [
50,
51]. The collection of physiological data relating to participants’ long-term conditions (for example, HbA1c levels among those participants with type 2 diabetes) was beyond the remit of this evaluation. In the case of type 2 diabetes, studies have shown that physical activity can improve glycaemic control among diabetic populations [
52] and it could reduce type 2 diabetes incidence [
53]. Future studies examining physiological as well as physical and mental health outcomes would be beneficial.
Conclusions
This study used the RE-AIM framework to evaluate the individual and organisational impacts of GP referral of inactive adults living with (or at risk of) long-term conditions to community-based physical activity. Although the target for programme reach was not met, and 6- and 12- month follow-up questionnaire responses were low, positive changes in physical activity and other outcomes assessed were observed among individuals that took part. Programme adoption at GP surgeries was successful, however, the GP referral process was not consistently implemented across participating surgeries. Physical activity sessions were successfully implemented; programme deliverers and group-based delivery were each identified as having an influential impact on programme outcomes, while changes to physical activity session content were made in response to participant feedback. An assessment of costs demonstrated the programme’s potential value for money. Overall, findings highlight strategies to be explored in future development and implementation of GP referral to community-based physical activity programmes targeting inactive adults living with (or at risk of) long-term conditions.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.