Picture of boy being examining by doctor at a tuberculosis sanatorium

Understanding our future through Open Access research about our past...

Strathprints makes available scholarly Open Access content by researchers in the Centre for the Social History of Health & Healthcare (CSHHH), based within the School of Humanities, and considered Scotland's leading centre for the history of health and medicine.

Research at CSHHH explores the modern world since 1800 in locations as diverse as the UK, Asia, Africa, North America, and Europe. Areas of specialism include contraception and sexuality; family health and medical services; occupational health and medicine; disability; the history of psychiatry; conflict and warfare; and, drugs, pharmaceuticals and intoxicants.

Explore the Open Access research of the Centre for the Social History of Health and Healthcare. Or explore all of Strathclyde's Open Access research...

Image: Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust. Wellcome Collection - CC-BY.

Using pedometers as motivational tools : are goals set in steps more effective than goals set in minutes for increasing walking?

Baker, Graham and Mutrie, Nanette and Lowry, Ruth (2008) Using pedometers as motivational tools : are goals set in steps more effective than goals set in minutes for increasing walking? International Journal of Health Promotion and Education, 46. ISSN 1463-5240

[img]
Preview
Text (strathprints007839)
strathprints007839.pdf
Accepted Author Manuscript

Download (140kB) | Preview

Abstract

Background Pedometers are popular devices that measure walking steps. There has been a recent surge in promoting the pedometer as a motivational tool to increase walking. However, little empirical evidence exists to support this suggestion. This study examined the effectiveness of a pedometer as a motivational tool to increase walking. 50 participants (7 men and 43 women, mean age (SD) 40.16 (8.81) years, range 25-61 years) were randomly assigned to either an intervention group who followed a four-week walking programme with goals set in steps (using an open pedometer for feedback) or a comparison group who followed an equivalent four-week walking programme with goals set in minutes. Participants had step-counts recorded at baseline, weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, and at weeks 16 and 52 for follow-up. Both groups significantly increased step-counts from baseline to week 4 with no significant difference between groups. However, a significantly greater number of participants in the intervention group (77%) compared with the comparison group (54%) achieved their week 4 goals (p=0.03). There was no significant change in step-counts from week 4 to week 16. There was a significant decrease from week 16 to week 52. In the short term, both goals set in minutes and goals set in steps using a pedometer may be effective at promoting walking. In the long term, additional support may be required to sustain increases in walking.