Effectivity of a Smartphone

Application to Promote
Physical Activity in Primary
Care:
the SMART MOVE
randomised controlled trial
Anindya Herwidaputri
Idri Nelvia Siska R.

Pembimbing: dr. Oryzati Hilman Agrimon, M.Sc., CMFM, Ph.D

 Physical inactivity is a major, potentially modifiable,
risk factor for cardiovascular disease, cancer, and
other chronic diseases. Effective, simple, and
generalisable interventions that will increase physical
activity in populations are needed.
This research aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of
a smartphone application (app) to increase physical
activity in primary care.
 PICO

P : 90 patients were selected from primary Health care user

smartphone aged > 16 years who met the inclusion criteria
I : using SMART MOVE intervention shares the basic feature with
software acupedo pro aplication pedometer and goals to
reach 10.000 steps a day

C : control group which told to walk 30 minutes a day

O : Post intervention of Use smartphone apps significantly increased

physical activity. But There were not significant differences between
control and intervention groups the systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood
pressure, body weight, BMI, mental examples of health and quality of life.
Critical Apraissal Tools
Are the result valid?

Were participant randomized?

Yes, in page 384, in the last sentence of introduction part, it is
stated This randomised controlled trial (RCT) aimed to evaluate
the effectiveness of a smartphone app in increasing physical
activity in primary care
In page 385, in the first pharagraph of randomisation and
intervention, it is also stated Randomisation occurred using
random permuted blocks to ensure there were similar numbers of
participants in the intervention and control groups
Were randomization concelaed?

Yes. In page 385, in the second pharagraph of

randomisation and intervention, its stated After the
randomisation code was assigned, baseline screening was
conducted blinded, during which relevant clinical,
anthropometric, psychological, and mobile device data were
collected.

Yes. In page 385, in the third pharagraph of

randomisation and intervention, its stated the allocation
sequence was concealed from all study investigators and
participants until all codes were assigned and week 1 was
completed.
Cont

Were participants analyzed in the groups to which they were

randomized?

Yes. In page 385, in the third pharagraph of

randomisation and intervention, its stated Both
intervention and control groups were then given similar physical
activity goals and information on the benefits of exercise;
however, only the intervention group was told how to use the
app to help them achieve these goals.

Were participants in each group similar with regard to known

prognostic variables?

Yes, on page 389 Table 2 showed similarity between two groups

Cont

Were participants aware of group allocation?

No, all participants didnt know in which group theyre placed.

Were clinicians aware of group allocation?

Yes, on page 385, it is stated The same independent

investigator was responsible for assigning participants to the
intervention and control groups after being called at a central
site.
Cont
Were outcome assesors aware of group allocation ?

Yes. In page 386, its stated, At the end of weeks 1, 2, and 8,

allnparticipants were contacted via SMS and asked to email their step-
count data to the research team using a share data function of the
app. All participants were invited back for follow-up testing within 1
week of finishing the trial.

Was follow up complete ?

Yes. In page 387, in the last sentence of results, its stated of the
90 participants randomised, 77 (86%) completed follow up; most loss to
follow up occurred during baseline week [figure 1].
What are the results?

How large was the treatment effect?

On page 388, Figure 2. It is stated the primary outcome, the mean

change in step count from week 1 to week 8 was compared between the
intervention and control groups.

How precise was the estimate of the treatment effect?

Changes between baseline and followup for control and intervention

groups for all primary and secondary outcomes are outlined in Table 2.
After adjusting for possible explanatory variables, there was still
evidence of a significant treatment effect (P = 0.009), where the
difference in mean improvement in mean daily step count from week 1
to week 8 inclusive was 1029 (95% CI 214 to 1843) steps per day
favouring the intervention.
How can I apply the results?

Were study participants similar to my own situation?

Yes, Because in Indonesia the majority of the population is already

using a smartphone, just have to download the application and
understand how to use it.

Were all clinically-important outcomes (harms and benefits)

considered?

Results on page 389 Table 2 shows significant differences

smartphone app usage increase the number of steps in one week
than the week 8, but for other variables the study did not show good
results