Paper Example. Evaluation of Randomized Control Study

The study aimed to evaluate the effect of different interventions on behavior change and interventions applied to the participants. It, therefore, analyzed participants' moderate to vigorous physical activity (Samdal et al., 2019). It further explored predictors of change and determined whether the level of education translated to the type of changes adopted by the team

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Validity of the Study

Samdal et al., (2019) utilized a Randomized Control Trial(RCT) in conducting the study. Therefore, the inclusion of different sedentary behaviors was randomized based on the effect of the intervention. Control trials were also considered through a group-based activity. Furthermore, the primary outcomes were analyzed using simple and multiple regression.

The study recruited 118 participants from six HLCs. However, there was no significant difference noted in the MVPA or sedentary times between groups. Participants with lower levels of education were less likely to improve. 83% of the participants achieved the recommended MVPA per week (Samdal et al., 2019). Furthermore, participants in the intervention groups showed improvement. The observations revealed that there was no short-term effect on the time spent on MVPA. The subjects analyzed within the study had different characteristics, and this facilitated the ability of a researcher to master different aspects associated with the response of other treatment interventions.

Recommendation of 150 minutes on moderate and 75 minutes of vigorous intensity was recommended per week. Healthy Life Centers (HLC) the body promotes behavior change among Norwegians with non-communicable diseases. NCD. The randomization process utilized a simple procedure to allocate 50% of interventions to each group. Therefore, those enrolling as participants were grouped based on the preexisting mental conditions obesity and other treatment interventions considered for the study (Samdal et al., 2019). The subjects were not blind to the study since the enrolment models were based on preexisting conditions. Besides, physical activity is a vital and involving process that required an individual's engagement and participation. Valid and reliable instruments were involved in the study.

Results of the Study and Their Importance

The primary outcomes showed variations linked to records and baseline characteristics. The statistics collected were based on the participant's responses to physical activity. Randomization models allowed 57 participants to be allocated to the interventions, while 61 had been required to have a six-month waiting time (Samdal et al., 2019). However, Sense Wear data was lsot6 from fife participants.

The intervention resulted in a favorable and improved effect. The observation was featured among participants who had an MVPA with a baseline of about --0.59;95% CLP,0.001 (Samdal et al., 2019). Regression analysis further showed that females had fewer improvements. Moreover, those with low education similarly had fewer improvements. Thus, participants with less and moderate education had minimal improvements. However, differences noted with the education levels had a dismal effect on the participants receiving identified interventions, and this was featured with dismal p-values that ranged between 0.3 and 0.8. The other notable changes were associated with an increase in the MVPA.

Participants with mental health and musculoskeletal challenge were less likely to increase their MPVA. Confidence interval showed significant differences in terms of metabolic equivalent. The confidence levels of the MVPA intervention showed a reference of -0.25, 0.18. On the other hand, sedentary PA showed a reference to 0-0.18, 0.64, which was slightly higher than that of MVPA (Samdal et al., 2019). The differences thus can be attributed to different factors such as lifestyle dietary issues, and metabolic rates that vary from one person to another. The RCT, therefore, showed that there was no significant effect on the change of MVPA or sedentary time after administering interventions for six months.

Results Helpful in Patient Care

Results apply to the current practice and interventions put in place to improve treatment outcomes. It provides a guideline for identifying models for boosting fitness. Although the study has several limitations, such as selection bias, it allows clinicians to identify elements that foster appropriate interventions. World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that a patient should access quality care. Reducing inactivity and NCD is one of the vital steps required in promoting quality treatment models. Furthermore, it recommends multi-sectoral models in promoting physical activity in their daily lives. The study further offered an opportunity to analyze the effect of MVPA and behavior change on an individual's health (Samdal et al., 2019). Healthcare personnel can use the results to target specific health crises, thus paving the way for efficient and timely interventions.

Clinical outcomes raised an insight into evidence-based models used in improving treatment outcomes. Metabolic rates and a person's preexisting conditions often affect the effectiveness of any treatment intervention. On the other hand, physical activity can alter different rates of art which an individual responds to treatments. Therefore, the primary benefit of the study is the improvements and efficiency of factors applied in determining patients' needs. One of the limitations noted was bias selection and the number of participants required for the study. Therefore, in the future, studies should enroll a higher number of participants to establish strong evidence on the role of physical activity across different populations. Identifying factors that hinder interventions is essential in determining treatment feasibility in a particular setting. Furthermore, the study had varied identification of patient values in expectations of the outcomes.

Reference

Samdal, G. B., Meland, E., Eide, G. E., Berntsen, S., Abildsnes, E., Stea, T. H., & Mildestvedt, T. (2019). The Norwegian Healthy Life Centre Study: A pragmatic RCT of physical activity in primary care. Scandinavian journal of public health, 47(1), 18-27.