Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Conclusions are misleading
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITOR
We welcome the article by Harland et al on promoting physical
activity in primary care but dispute the conclusion that these schemes
are of questionable effectiveness.1 The title for the
paragraph for This week in the BMJ that "exercise on
prescription" is a waste of scarce resources is also misleading and
not justified by evidence to date.
Our response stems from concerns about their intervention approach and our experience in two research endeavours: implementing a physical activity prescription scheme in New Zealand and a recently published randomised controlled trial resulting in long term improvement in physical activity for older people.2
Firstly, we question whether the level of intervention with the control group (information and recommendations about activity) resulted in a comparison with a lesser intervention, rather than a true control group, perhaps underestimating the efficacy of exercise counselling.
Secondly, is lengthy motivational interviewing appropriate and
replicable in a